Thursday, January 7, 2010

Welcome to Thunderdome

Any decent society would live for and by the ethical code of the Non-Aggression Principle as the foundation for optimal social organization and human interaction. In such a society wherein No person may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical force, there would be no need for any bail-out, there would be no stimulus package thrown at the already rich and powerful, and there would be no confiscation of the common mans paycheck to save banks that should go bankrupt.

Of course we are far from living in such a tranquil and civilized state. Very far from.

What I’ve come to realize more and more lately is that the powers that be (PTB) will never voluntarily relinquish their power over death and life. Worse yet, they will more than likely commit murder to keep it. The more people realize what’s going on, the more our Great Leaders will impose their fascist regulations comes to internet as well as increase such injections of madness into the very core of our culture. It’s a never ending cycle were we see through one or some of any number of scams, it leads to additional legalization to cover it up or some other scheme to stop us from digging deeper, and when we see through that the same thing happens again and so the show goes on.

This situation can really only be broken by an upraising of some sort. It can be an armed one filled with dangling banksters, but it can also be a pretty peaceful one. An example of the later can be that we all stop paying our taxes or that everyone moves their money from traditional thieving banks to precious metals or any other form of alternative. The problem with the peaceful solution is that those that created the problems, lied to us and have no intention of giving away their lavish lifestyle, are still there, they can still wield some power, and sooner or later people regain their trust in the system built to keep the status que hence the PTB only needs to bide their time.

A good compromise, that should suit most, would be to throw in an additional legislation that never can be tempered with. What I am talking about is the notion of mortal combat, one to one. Imagine that a politician wants to impose, oh, let’s say, shoe-taxation, then that is fine, however, if doing so that politician need to face any challenger in the ring, fighting to the death, well then such legislation would hardly come to pass.

You see the people that rule us are all cowards. You’ll never see any contemporarily leader out bombing Muslim villages, not in person. Not a single one of those that rule us would ever get their hands dirty; they have paid for thugs to do their bidding. Ever seen a politician, in person, sending back an open homosexual refugee to Iran? Ever heard of a politician that, in person, has evicted a family from their home because the bank that stole all their money is reclaiming the house? At least ancient time’s dictators sometimes would personally execute inhabitants or ride in front of the army. In this regard the leaders of the past had a lot more balls.

And the whole thing can be televised to further educate people in power, or striving for power, what happens when they try to govern.

Two men enter. One man leaves.

If the challenge is refused, the alternative is the death-penalty. Hanging by the short-drop.

And to appease any feminist complaining we can make sure that any woman politician that steps into the ring can face a male, preferably a large muscular man that can club a baby seal with a flinch of his fingers.

How many think that we would see any form of legislation ever again?

I think this is a fantastic idea, and something that would not only save lives, it would also be entertaining as well as have an inherent charm.

I know that this suggestion isn’t really a complete commitment to the Non-Aggression Axiom, because according to that any person challenged can say no. However, can we really regard politicians as humanoids? Do they really fall under the humanity-protection clause? Let’s say they do, I still feel my proposal can be implemented because any form of legislation that is not meant to protect basic rights, can, and should be regarded as a violation and part of the oppressive agenda hence any politician arguing their right to govern us is automatically the instigator of violence i.e. any challenge to fight needs to be answered.

Oh, I know what you’re gonna say; imagine if the politicians trained martial arts and become experts in snuffing, would we then need to live with the laws? Well I would propose that the challenger, which always is the ordinary citizen, can choice the way of combat. So if the politician is a black belt, they can fight with guns, and if the politician knows guns, the fight will be with swords. You see, I’ve thought this through.

The only question that is relevant is where to hold these fights. The only reasonable answer I can think of is that we transform the parliament to a ring of death. It stands to reason that the place where our enslavement become obligatory will be the arena it ends.

If there’s a political party or movement out there that picks up this idea, you will have my vote.

No comments:

Post a Comment