 
|
11A094
Kleptos Rule, OK?
by Jim Davies, 4/5/2011
It occurred to me over the weekend that the entire world is ruled by bands of thieves. There are 193 or 203 countries, depending how one counts, soon to be one more when Southern Sudan breaks free of the parasites in Khartoum, and every one of them is governed by people who systematically steal from those they rule. This is called "kleptocracy" - a word derived from two Greek ones, κλεπτησ (thief) and κρατια (rule.) There are several forms of rule: aristocracy is rule by nobles, autocracy (by one person by himself, eg a Czar) and of course democracy, a fiction under which people are supposed to rule themselves. But kleptocracy is rule by thieves, and all other forms are subsidiary members of that kind, for all of them steal. The theft may not be conducted by the kind of refined, systematic extortion system we have in the Land of the Free; most of the governments are too idle or inefficient to run one like that. Those instead take large bribes or fees for licenses to do any kind of business, such as retailing food, and pay armed uniformed thugs to prevent anyone operating without a license. That happens here too, of course, but patient "education" over many generations has induced scores of millions of US subjects to confess what we "owe" and hand it over without fuss. In the USSR the State "owned" and operated everything, so the Party just dictated how many paper tokens were to be paid to whom, in effect creating a parasite class living off the labor of the exploited... who were told how they were actually "the people" doing the ruling. Amazing, how gullible folk are when it comes to government. How perceptive was Hitler: "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." To steal is to remove property from its owner without his free and uncoerced permission. Naturally, since in all cultures stealing is seen to be "bad", governments always take care to define the act as non-theft when they do it, often using a different word ("taxation") or trying to justify it as necessary for the greater good ("tax is the price we pay for a civilized society") or, as the Soviets did in the last Century and as American slaveholders did in the two previous ones, simply take the value before it reaches those who earned it. But since it walks and talks and quacks like theft, theft is always what they do. They're kleptocrats, every one. Fundamentally, the act of ruling another human being is necessarily an act of theft; for the very nature of being human is to possess the natural right to rule oneself. That right cannot be compromised, it is an integral part of human life. The statement "I own myself" is not so much in the form subject, verb, object (as if "I" were an entity somehow separate from "myself") as it is a kind of fused phrase "I-own-myself"; that is, if I did not have that absolute right of self-ownership I would not be a human person. Whenever it is violated in practice, therefore, (whenever someone else exercises rule over a person) that victim's core humanity is damaged and a part of his very person is stolen. It is not even possible to give oneself into slavery, to accept rule by someone else, assuming one were so foolish as to desire that. Reason: at the instant prior to the transaction taking place, the entity being proferred would be a self-owning human being. The instant after it occurs, the entity would still be a self-owning human, for his nature cannot change. Therefore such a transfer of ownership is impossible and the deal, fraudulent. A self-owning human can of course contract for service (I agree to accept your direction of my actions for 40 hours a week, in exchange for 25 gold grams) but that is entirely different; the moment the other party departs from the terms of that contract, the servant can exercise his self-ownership rights by taking legal action against him. But when kleptos rule, that's not possible. They monopolize the courts, and a key element in their system of rule is that they, the kleptos, decide whether and how they can be sued. With unbelievable arrogance, they call it Sovereign Immunity.
|
|
