Ultimate Deity

I’m an ATHEIST -

That means that I don’t believe in any mythical beings, angels, demons, pantheons of gods or a monotheistic god. That’s right, not even yours. It doesn’t mean that I’m 100% sure that no gods exist. It just means that, while I might not KNOW for CERTAIN, I can still say with full confidence that the idea of an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent man who performs miracles and listens to prayers is completely stupid.

Yes, I’ve heard your arguments. Yes, I’ve read your Bible verses. Yes, I still think you’re wrong.

However, I am an ordained minister in the Church of the Subgenius and will soon be offering discreet units of salvation for a very competitive price. Unlike those other religions, I have a money-back guarantee: Eternal salvation or triple your money back.

I’m an ANARCHIST -

That means that I don’t think ANY group of people, no matter how “nice” they convince you that they are, should ever take your money under the threat of violence. I don’t care if they are dressed in mafia pin stripes, gold chains and a wife beater, or a police uniform. It’s not the costume that matters – it’s the action.

A state is the group of people that justify and “legalize” the initiation of violence, all done, of course, out of necessity and to protect us against those that initiate violence, because we all know that attacking people is wrong, unless it’s the government doing it.

The behavior of human beings varies widely. Some people will be more violent than others. It is therefor necessary for anyone who wishes that there be less violence in the world to support those who are less violent and oppose those who are more violent. It is also necessary, to be free, to be able to defend yourself against such violent people.

However, what is our attempt at a solution to this very real problem? To have group of people that you and I are not allowed to defend ourselves against when they attack us? Really? To have a group of people that has the legal right to assault, kidnap, lock us in a cage and even kill us? That’s your solution?

Well, I would agree with you that somebody has to protect people. We have to have rules and force may be necessary when people violate those rules. However, in the current reality that we find ourselves in, can we honestly say that the laws we live by are really ours? We may have some influence over the laws, but it is limited, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of them. Most of us aren’t even aware of a fraction of the laws we are supposed to obey.

That brings up a good question. What is a law, anyway? As I see it, a “law” is a written statement that describes behavior that we hate so much that we allow the use of violence to prevent and discourage.

Take, for instance, armed theft. Let’s say you own a bakery in New Jersey. Tony Soprano comes to your bakery and says that everyone in the neighborhood has to pay protection money with the thinly veiled threat “or else something might happen to you”. Because we all agree this is immoral, evil, and violates our rights, we make a “law” against it, and Tony ignores it.

Without some guns to back up that law, it is worthless. You would probably say that it is worth paying for to have that kind of protection. You would also realize that the cost of doing so should be shared collectively. This is one of the reasons why you support the state, is it not?

After all, what if there were no state? You couldn’t just call the police. You’d have to go around the neighborhood, gathering money and help from people. You’d need a couple of guns yourself. If people were robbed by Tony before, they may see it as a worthwhile investment. Many people may not consent to pay you or help you, but they would most likely recognize your right to defend yourself and wouldn’t try to use violence against you.

So you hire some guns to protect you from Tony. You want to get your guys bigger guns, more ammo, and some bullet-proof vests, but haven’t yet raised the money. Would your solution be to start collecting “protection money” from people without their consent to get what you wanted?

If that is the case, you would be doing the same thing as Tony, and would not be any better than he is. However, that is exactly what you are doing by supporting the state.

Many people do not consent to paying for the wars, but you use the threat of violence and imprisonment to force people to pay for them.

Many people do not consent to paying to arrest and imprison people for smoking pot, but they pay, because you force them to pay.

Many people simply do not consent to paying for the subsidies, the corporate bailouts, the extravagant lifestyles of politicians, the pork, the pet projects, the welfare, the big digs, the $800 toilet seats, the secret pentagon programs, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA spying on it’s own citizens, the torture, the assassinations, the riot police breaking up peaceful protests, or the bridges to nowhere, but if they don’t pay for it, you support using violence against them – taking their money without their consent.

The only right that we can be sure that we have is our right to own our own bodies. Nobody owns you. This is the essence of the truths that the founding fathers felt was “self-evident”.

All I am doing is stating the obvious: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Without consent, there should be no government. That is the essence of my position.

That is anarchism.