by Jeremy Locke


It is the purpose of all governments to murder that they might get gain. This plain and simple truth is so harsh upon the human mind, that few are willing to accept it. The rulers in government exploit every opportunity to proclaim their altruism, their service, their benevolence, their necessity, and their right to rule. The fabrications that they return in exchange for obedience are nothing more than worthless paper promises.

Purveyors of Violence
What goods or services can a government provide? What promises can it keep? Without exception, every nation and empire in history has promised that it will provide for the defense and welfare of its citizens.
Whatever means a government may have at its disposal, be they gold, armies, organization, or even factories and farms; they are all provided through violence. This is the fundamental separation between free enterprise and government. You can choose your enterprises, but you cannot choose your empire.
All means of government are acquired through force. By whatever name, all possessions of governments are attained through violent means. From national lands, to national treasuries, to indentured servants, every possession of every nation is acquired through the means of taxes or war. When tribute is demanded and paid, it is a tax. When tribute is refused and taken by force, it is war. The scale of these tactics does not diminish this truth. If they are used against a lone rogue in the wilderness, or against a mighty people overseas, the results and purposes are the same.
Gain for governments may come in the form of recognized money, or of conquered lands, or by the ability to command the arbitrary obedience of peoples. All governments use both the threat and the actual use of violence in order to get gain.

Promises
One of the biggest questions left to thinking people is: What if the government does not live up to its promise? If the police fail to defend your family from invasion, or your home from robbery, will they step aside so that you can choose a capable candidate to secure you? There is a word for attempting to select a better protector for yourself; it is treason.
Promises governments make in exchange for obedience cannot be kept. This may seem to be an overzealous statement, but it is not. It is a simple truth that you cannot create by destroying. Life is the stuff of choices, the stuff of searching and learning. You cannot gain happiness or prosperity when the essence of life – free will – is destroyed. It is simply not possible.
A government may promise wealth or security, but after its machinations are put in place, it will destroy instead of create. A tax collector may believe he is advancing the greater good. A solider may believe that he is securing liberty. A bureaucrat may believe that he is organizing others’ lives more efficiently. No exceptions, if an action of law removes choice from human life, it can only destroy. Muggers, rapists and mafias destroy free will in various ways. Few would make the claim that they add benefit to society, despite any other actions they may take outside their criminal occupations.
While nothing is added to humanity by stealing from one man and giving to another, much is destroyed. The first loses the fruits of his labor, and his trust for his fellow man. The second loses the ambition to create in favor of making slaves of his neighbor. You cannot create anything good by destroying free will. The facts are plain. That which destroys, destroys.

Social Insurance
One of modern history’s most audacious promises issued by governments is the idea of social insurance, either in the form of medical or retirement benefits, stored with the government, in the promise of future security.
The essence of such promises is that if you yield money and control to the rulers of law today, they will make sure that you are provided for in the future. The most obvious and immediate effect of such systems is the transfer of wealth (by force, since such things are never voluntary) from the citizenry to the government. The more sinister and latent effect is that it urges people into a complete dependence upon law.
Social insurance schemes create volumes of paper promises (or just mysterious "trust us" notions) that are issued to people in exchange for obedience today. Hard assets (labor and obedience) are transferred to the rulers now, in exchange for unaccountable promises tomorrow.

Fiat Currencies, Bonds
The paper promises most frequently seen in normal life, of course, are the currencies issued as money by governments. Whether they be total fiat currencies, asset-backed currencies, or bonds, governments issue paper promises redeemable tomorrow, in exchange for hard assets (your labor) today.
As with all laws, such promises are not purchased voluntarily. In order to buy and sell, without risking chains, one must use the law’s paper. As with all paper promises, hard assets are yielded today, in exchange for an unaccountable promise tomorrow – the ability to redeem the paper for something of value.
Such paper promises can be inflated, defaulted, reneged, or subjected to involuntary terms at any time.

Real Estate, Deeds
People who purchase real property perceive that they are trading money for a hard asset. This should be true, but it is not.
Under governments, people do not actually purchase real property; they purchase deeds, a paper permission from government to possess property. The deed requires annual maintenance fees called property taxes. Purchasing real estate under governments is actually a transfer of hard assets (the tax) in exchange for the paper promise that government will enforce your ability to possess that property.
As with all government paper, the terms can change at any time. They can raise the extraction cost, or they can arbitrarily determine rules upon which you use your property. Hard assets go to the rulers of law, and phantom paper promises go to you.
There is no negotiation; if you want property, you must accept the arbitrary rule of law.

Law, Treaties, Constitutions
Without a doubt, the most sinister, cunning, and all-sweeping paper promises ever issued by the rulers of law, are laws themselves. The formula is the same. You have no choice in accepting the transaction; where you are born determines the rulers you will obey. The gain yielded to governments is nothing short of your entire life – your complete and total obedience to any future demand they create. The paper promises they return in exchange are written laws guaranteeing your security and prosperity. Hard assets are yielded involuntarily, and paper promises are given in return.
The supreme proof that such promises were never meant to be kept is the massive destruction of both wealth and security created by law. The most sweeping name for that destruction is war. Governments are very, very good at it.

Pure Theft
It is a simple truth that there is no reason to use force against people unless you are trying to steal something from them. All of the paper promises of law are worthless, because there is no intention of them being kept. If law was willing to live up to its promises, it wouldn’t need to force people to accept them. The reason it must force people is because it has no intention of returning equal value for that which it takes. It issues phantom promises to quiet the minds of its victims, lest they rebel.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/locke2.html

by Jeremy Locke


It is the purpose of all governments to murder that they might get gain. This plain and simple truth is so harsh upon the human mind, that few are willing to accept it. The rulers in government exploit every opportunity to proclaim their altruism, their service, their benevolence, their necessity, and their right to rule. The fabrications that they return in exchange for obedience are nothing more than worthless paper promises.




It would seem to me that Jeremy is trying to capitalize on sensationalism by his use of the word "murder." Certainly that would get your attention; but his careless use of it in the context of "all" governments murder simply to gain whatever (as if that "whatever" isn't important) is misleading, IMO.

I'm willing to accept some laws enforcing behavior I would follow anyway, so the law can coerce those that won't follow decent behavior to do so or get locked up. All laws aren't "forced" on us. Most the majority approve of and accept, and expect the minority to accept or change.

If the minority has to "accept or change" the law, how is not forced upon them?

Using the word "murder" in the literal sense perhaps, but...

I agree with your line of thought.



Laws, enacted through our governmental processes, are a necessity we, as a whole, have chosen to accept as a manner of creating order, as opposed to enduring continuing chaos in our mode of living.



Through government, our country, as well as many others, conduct necessary global and homeland communications. I'm not sure what Jeremy's overall point was; but, if he has a better idea to replace our governmental structure with, and still provide the necessities our country demands, he hasn't demonstrated that to me.

I think Jeremy was being too dramatic and abstract.



What was exactly was he referring to? He gave no examples, so it's impossible to know what he meant by it.

My daughter took her 5 & 6 year old boys to the circus yesterday. The six year old had so many questions about the animals, especially the tigers. They were white and beautiful and amazing to watch. The 6 year old was concerned whether or not they were"happy". My daughter gave them an age appropriate answer while I mused that they probably were not. While they had meals provided and 'health care', they lived in a cage and let out only to 'work'. Watching Animal Planet on TV last night and observing 'the law of the jungle' made me question: "Are these animals, happy?" They have many enemies and their lives are constantly in danger of being in the food chain. "Happy" is not an adjective for animals in the wild, IMO.

The simplistic answer would seem to be that animals are 'happy' in a preserve which provides a safe haven for exotic animals and protection of their rights.

To extrapolate on the human level, history shows clearly that what freedom truly brings to people is peace and prosperity. However, providing for the common defense against enemies coming from within society or outside the nation should be the primary job of the government Instead, they issue worthless paper promises and we are no more than circus animals, caged into a system of providing a means for the law makers to maintain their lavish lifestyles as power brokers. Or just look at the muslim countries with their culture of war lords, clerics, drug lords who overpower the people. Women and children have no rights in those countries. Mass murder is the consuetude of their existance. Are these people "happy". It appears not. Young men (and some women) would rather be dead and take others with them.

Are Americans "happy"? Not when you have the Jesse Jacksons et al telling them how oppressed they are. Not when SCOTUS rules that their land can be taken away from them and sold to the highest bidder. Not when planned retirement pensions vanish into thin air. Not when the main stream media hammers home a discontent 24/7. Should the "Freedom of the Press" be able to further discontent in order to acheive their own political agenda?

~~William Pitt the Elder in a House of Lords speech in 1770

And paper promises lead to unlimited power......

I'd kind of like the freedom to roam some, but not so much freedom I have to kill slower, older or smaller animals to survive. There have to be some limitations we can agree on, without cradle to the grave provisions for everything from central planning.

Hi Judy



Although the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", one can understand that our government is not promising to make everyone happy. So, to me, the government cannot be held accountable for everyone's happiness or unhappiness.



As for common defense, the United States Constitution states:




Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



And we continue to try to form a more perfect Union. IMO, our military is second to none and has provided exemplary service to our country, which is evident from the freedoms we do enjoy. It may be that you are saying our government has failed at times. And isn't that going to continue to be a part of our striving to form a more perfect union? We can, and should, as you have done, point out the injustices perceived; but all, in all, I think our government has done a heck of a good job and that should not get lost in the hue and cry of the dissenters.



No, I don't think our representatives deserve those huge salaries. I don't think serving your country should be seen as a quick way to get rich. With the salaries they're raking in, it certainly has distorted the motives "the people" intended. Certainly congress shouldn't be allowed to vote for their own raises. There's still a lot of changes needed. And I most assuredly agree with you about the horrendous decision the U.S. Supreme Court handed down that gave businesses the right to take away a citizen's home; for, after all, the line "pursuit of Happiness" meant to include in its interpretation a person's right to own property and to have it safeguarded. I hope to see a case (or cases) taken back to the high court that will result in this ruling being overturned. This ruling has caused so much harm.



On the topic "Freedom of the Press"...I don't have the time right now, but, when the press has gone as far as it has to destroy members of our government, our president, harm and demoralize our troops through its blatant lies and propaganda, I believe they must be stopped. The freedom of the press cannot override the freedom of the citizens of the United States, which the press has put in jeopardy.

Hi ya Carol!!

It seems to me that they are denying the "pursuit of Happiness". But I appears that the government (and that certainly includes the judiciary and their wacky decisions) can be held accountable for a lot of unhappiness by unfair application of laws and treatment.



Providing for the common defense seems to be on the bottom of the list of government priority. The emphasis of criminal and terrorist "rights", the restrictive Rules of Engagement for the military, and the broken criminal justice system is just that... CRIMINAL!



Since most of them are multi millionaires they should donate their service to their country and have term limits.



Do we even want to go there?????

What alternative do you propose?

Who and how should determine the salary of members of Congress?

I REPEAT:

Then only rich people will be able to afford the job. I'd rather pay them more to do the job and limit the wealth they can acquire afterwards. No more insider trading, inflated speaking fees, lobbying and assorted payoffs that make their salaries into a comparative pittance.

Wasnt there a guy in the 1980s who put an add in either the NY Times or Washington Post "Send me your used dollar bills" and a lot of people did

Or is it just another urban myth

Soupy Sales told kids on his kiddie show to go take Dad's money and mail it to him, some did. A joke that backfired.

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp

Can't copy from Snopes, but they have the story. He didn't make as much as some folks thought. At least he didn't get fired over it.

I loved Soupy as a kid. White fang and Black tooth were great. He was always doing weird stuff, especially for the early 60s.