[P2P-F] feasible - legally - to set up an alternative government body in Wisconsin ?

[Mark Janssen]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Carson
<free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only reason to try to set up another government is if your current
>> government's basic principles or constitution are against your own
>> basic principles.   Unless you want to be a dictator, this is likely
>> not the case (at least in the U.S.).   Consider this carefully.  A lot
>> of people have invested a lot of science of political thought over the
>> past 3000+ years.
>
> Well, yeah.  The propertied classes, the ruling classes, over the past
> 3000 years have invested a lot of thought in how to use states to
> extract a surplus from the producing classes through artificial
> property rights, artificial scarcities, and assorted subsidies and
> privileges.

Kevin, there are no "producing classes" -- you have free will.  And
property is an imaginary construct upheld by those too afraid or too
ignorant to challenge it.  Take it to court, keep your wits, and
you'll find a very frail basiis for its continuance.  Watch the whole
fucking structure collapse right in front of your eyes.  It's the
right time, as the era of conquest is over, and now we can look back
and assess the moral and reasonable basiis for our past choices and
how we will mend them.  It will be a sight to see, no doubt....

If you do want to pursue this course, get in contact.  I have a *lot*
to say about it and would support you.

> Government exists mainly for enforcing the political means to wealth,

That is certainly what it has become, but I think it is mostly because
people got intimidated, then apathetic, and then sold-out their soul
and accepted convenience in place of ideals (a.k.a. the yuppies).  I
salute all who don't let this happen to themselves.

> through rents on government-enforced artificial property rights.
> That's been the main purpose of the state these past 3000 years:  to
> make sure the people who do the world's work give over their surplus
> to the people who own the world.

This is an argument by one who thinks they need the property owners to
survive.  This is one of the means they control you.  Get
straighttedge, streamlined, and free, then you can push the system
from the outside.

> The effort of actually working within the system to change the laws,
> in this analogy, equates to the enormous number of sorties required to
> bomb an entire physical infrastructure to rubble.

This would be true if the nation-state in question had no values or
was constitutionally dictatorial, but the U.S. is not.  Either it
abides by its principles or it fucking falls dude.   There's no way
around it, especially now where such cases can get enormous mind-share
via the Internet and such.

Don't let size intimidate you -- without sound principles founded in
universal human values, the beast will fucking drop.  If you need some
pointers, get in touch -- I can point you in the right direction.

>  Why not play by the rules of asymmetric warfare
> and nullify their advantages in money and resources?

Well, I believe that is also a good parallel strategy, but not a
replacement for what I'm recommending.  Because the issues of creating
a stable government will still re-surface and you'll be faced with the
same questions as before.

Cheers and thanks for the continuing dialog....

marcos