The crippling of the masses

PerBylund.com / A Declaration of Independence

First off, BOO TO BLOGGER for not having a way to go Back if you encounter some kind of stupid error while trying to post. BOOOOO!!!!!

Now for my article...as best as I can reproduce it.

I've read some of Per Bylund's work, and I agree on a few points. Society has crippled the individual from being able to truly be an individual. There's a term I've bandied about a few times on "Chartreuse": institutionalization. People on welfare get it. Convicts in prison get it. You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; you keep feeding him, and he loses the ability to fish for himself. It's like a muscle: if you don't use it, you lose it. So, in that, I see how "the State" has crippled the individual.

However, the argument I have against any form of anarchy is that a "State" is essential. Per suggests that the only rule (at least in his version of anarchy) is that you do whatever you want to embetter yourself, as long as it is not at the expense of another. This is at the heart of what he terms "egoism."

For those of you who keep tabs on the news, you know that there will always be someone out there who is in it for him/herself, AT the expense of another. Always. How do you prevent this? You have to enforce it. And how do you enforce it?

You have to have a "State." This "State" would have the primary purpose of enforcing this rule of "egoism." A "state" is a necessary evil, because there will always be people who cannot be trusted to be true to the nature of this concept of "egoism."

The problem with a State is it tends to grow, and grow, until you get what we have now: a huge bureaucracy, run by politicians, who are primarily in it for their own selves, DEFINITELY at the expense of others.

So, a "State" would have to be designed to enforce individualism, while preventing any type of oppression (or bureaucracy, etc) to form.

How do you do that?

I don't know.