On Detroit

In Detroit we have a microcosm of what is going on in the economy as a whole… If we fail to recognize the cause and effect in Detroit, then America will be doomed to the same fate. Generally, people have many different interpretations on the causes, but if we don’t define our terms and principles correctly, we will never come to the proper conclusions, which is why I believe we have such a disconnect. Enquiries into the cause and effect of social and economic problems is like getting dropped into the wilderness and told to survive. However if you were able to properly identify a plant as either edible or poisonous your chances of survival would undoubtedly increase. Therefore it is just as important in politics and economy to define our terms properly, as well as our moral principles, then we can trace where the distortion or undesired outcome is in society and hopefully with that understanding manage our way out of the wilderness. Because despite what we would like to believe, changing the name of something doesn’t change its nature just like in the case of plants in the wilderness. Let us examine then some of these terms and principles, and hopefully in the future we can avoid the poison which currently plagues Detroit.


If you were to ask someone to describe the happenings in Detroit and what is currently the economic relationship between society and the State most would respond with the term Cronyism. It can be traced to an ancient Latin phrase Quid Pro Quo meaning “this for that” or in the political sense “favour for a favour”. Quid Pro Quo isn’t necessarily bad in the economic sense, but when it is applied to the political, that is where the problems occur. When cronyism is systemic and is the primary guide in the actions of political and private actors, this is and should be defined by the doctrine known as Fascism. As such we must first examine what Fascism really means… “state-run capitalism”, briefly explained thus, the partnership between private sectors in the economy with public sectors in the State. Therefore Detroit is a shining example of how detrimental such an economic relationship can be, even in the face of what seemed to be immense growth and expansion in the local and national economy. On the other hand Communism is the complete abolition of any “private” property, meaning absolute control over the individual by the State, being in my opinion the most extreme case of an economic relationship. The economic relationship between individuals and States vary however when we take into account the political relationships.


 What then defines a political relationship? Two concepts stand out more than anything, those are which methods of legitimacy and which means of control does the State employ? Firstly the method of legitimacy can be divided into two groups the Feudal where individuals become rulers through birthright and all decisions are made by the King and his court. And the Democratic whereby there is a social contract and decisions are voted on directly by the people, or through representatives who are elected on behalf of the people. Then under those two archetypes of legitimacy, we find our means of control, being exerted on the private production of individuals either by decree or writ in the Feudal, or by law and regulation found in the Democratictaxes being universal. Aha! and here we find the crucial detail, if taxes are universal, then we admit at the very outset that the most fundamental mechanism which employs and allows the State to exist is based entirely on coercion and force!


The obvious objection would be how can you equate taxation with coercion and force is it not for the universal good i.e. justice? Well first we have to examine what is essential to existence as human beings? Which is, the concept of property, and our claim to said property. For example food, clothing, and shelter being your most fundamental property needed for survival. What then is our claim to said property, and I believe all would agree that coercion or force is the least productive means to acquire property, and at the outset criminal and immoral. Therefore the only legitimate means of acquiring them is through peaceful means or by labor whereby individuals enter into contracts freely at mutually agreeable prices. On the other hand if individuals work through coercion or force it can no longer be called labor, but more aptly called slavery. The second question then, raises I think most of the controversy, and that is, how do we protect the property once it has been produced?


All would agree that Slavery is morally wrong, and that labor must be entered into freely. Therefore if we all agree to the logic that coercion and force is morally corrupt to the acquisition of property and labor, then why is the same logic not applied to the provision of protection? Since the State essentially coerces and forces individuals through taxation to pay for said protection based on what? An implicit social contract? The results of an election? Birthright of Kings and Queens as I have stated previously? However, regardless of any legitimacy of the State to provide protection, all of them rely on the servitude of the individual to the collective, because once you become a critic of said State, or outright refuse to accept its legitimacy and not pay taxes, you are automatically branded a traitor and rebel, and as such dealt with in the harshest fashion, by either being thrown in jail or outright killed. Therefore it can be said the State intrinsically is an institution constructed by coercion and force. The poison then that is destroying Detroit is Barbarism!!! Here is our cause and effect in full view because what else would you call a group of people who achieve their goals through violence?


If Society has the moral courage to throw off the shackles of slavery in the case of labor, let us also throw off the same shackles in the case of protection! If society does not find the moral courage to do this then the nightmare of history shall repeat itself again and again and again until the end of time… If history has anything to teach us, it is that the fall of Society can be traced to the unwillingness of the many to defend against the few who promise protection while at the very same moment bringing death upon those who refuse their mode of protection. I do believe the day will come, where the many will reject the claims and postures of the few who point guns at us and say but of course its for your own good. Much the same way a man beats his child all the while telling him not to hit others. So just as the concept of slavery became morally unacceptable, so too will Statism or Government. Because after all Barbarism is Statism by another name!


I say to you then end this nightmare of history!!! Because if we don’t what will our children read in the history books about us in the future, that we were moral like those who came before us that ended the evil practice called slavery? Or will they read that we did nothing and continue to allow the immorality that is propagated against us by the State because of the simple fact that we refuse to recognize the elephant in the room? The truth will set us free, because once we realized the true nature of slavery as being immoral we shrugged it off. The same will happen when we realize the true nature of the State as also being immoral. In closing I would like to leave you with a quote from “The Man versus The State” by Herbert Spencer. “Even a successful revolution, if such a thing were conceivable, against the military tyranny which is Statism’s last expedient, would accomplish nothing. The people would be as thoroughly indoctrinated with Statism after the revolution as they were before, and therefore the revolution would be no revolution, but a coup d’Etat, by which the citizen would gain nothing but a mere change of oppressors.” With those thoughts in mind folks wherever you are stay free!