government is rape

Fascism and slavery are two sides of the same coin. Control implies the controlled; subjugation implies the subjugated.

When is this relationship legitimate? Only when the subjugation is agreed to by the subjugated starting from a position of equal power. Typically, this only occurs in the bedroom.

The relationship between the government and the citizen is one of unequal power. The government spies on, searches, taxes, controls the movements of, the employment of, the abilities to express oneself of the citizen. This power relation is one of slaver and slavee. But is it legitimate?

Never.

Because the citizen has never agreed to this subjugation beginning from a position of equal power—s/he was never in a position to spy on, tax, search, or control the movements of the government. The agreement was made from a position of power imbalance.

Just as one may "agree" to hand over ones valuables to a thief at gunpoint, we "agree" to hand over our autonomy to the government.

The situation here is not unlike statutory rape. Even "consensual" sex between an adult and a child is reprehensible because the child is in no position to give consent. This is because of the power imbalance between the two participants. The adult abuses the child no matter what the child thinks s/he may have consented to or not. Such "consent" cannot be legitimate.

It is incorrect to identify reason as the distinguishing factor. The child is in no position to rationally assess the consequences of hir actions, one might say, but the mature citizen is, and can legitimately decide to cede power to the government.

This is a red herring. It is completely incorrect.

The only analysis of rationality we have is means / ends rationality. But by this reasoning, it is rational for the slave not to run (because s/he will be whipped); it is rational for the unarmed at gunpoint to hand over hir wallet; and it is rational for the child to submit to the adult who controls hir future. Rationality does not coincide with legitimacy or morality. The means / ends reason for ceding power may nevertheless be morally illegitimate.

This also explains why the government systematically grants itself more power (greater powers to spy, to search, to tax, to control), and why this is so dangerous. Not just pragmatically dangerous (though it is), but morally dangerous. In doing so, the government distances itself further and further from the ideal of legitimacy. The more powerful the government, the less possible any legitimate moral mandate from the governed.

We are being systematically raped by a villain who uses the money from our pockets and tears licked from our cheeks to empower himself to rape us more easily and frequently.

We are slaves.

institutionalized compassion

The gravest danger of the anthropomorphis of government is the attribution of the same moral values to this "agent" as to individuals. The should and should not of the individual are not those of the government. For example, an individual act of compassion is an expression of hope, of optimism for the future. To choose to act compassionately toward an individual is to demonstrate one's faith in his ability to continue, to persevere, to become. Such an individual act of compassion is constructive. Conversely, institutionalized compassion, compassion rigidified in government policy, is an expression of profound pessimism. Each act of government "compassion" is an instance of mere rule following, conformation to law, blind reverence for statute; it demonstrates no judgment that its object will persevere, will become, rather it stands as evidence that "society" counts him incompetent, unable to become, simply to be. This is the corollary to the momentum of government: as the agential dominion of government grows, so that of the individual shrinks. To succumb to the institutionalization of compassion is then to make of man a slave, mere cannon-fodder for "just wars," or cattle for the living slaughter of bureaucratic prison. These cattle drivers who come under the guise of the compassionate! ~ these Quislings, these traitors toward humanity who march under hypocritical banners: "Compassion"; "Hope"; "Peace" . . . the wise man believes not such rhetoric and recognizes institutionalized compassion for what it is: institutionalized slavery!

the election

The election is a nationwide exercise in delusion. The common man thinks: "in the election, I have a choice; by voting, I can effect change!" But the common man does not understand the momentum of government. This momentum is teleological in character, and any real change in government must be a change in this momentum. The petty issues which will determine the outcome of the coming election ("the war in Iraq," "abortion rights," "drugs for seniors," . . . ), these are but pebbles on the inevitable road of government "progress." The near-sighted man will be the death of democracy, and the hero of slavery.

guilt

The protestant spins his wheels with guilt, but only digs himself deeper in the mud. How can one erase these flagellant impulses? Is not guilt the the most self-indulgent of all motivations? One makes of oneself a victim, persecuted only by oneself. Such faux persecution deserves no pity, for its eradication or preservation is determined solely by the victim's whim. Protestantism has burdened the innocent with the crimes of the inquisition, making men into slavedrivers of themselves. Can we not find some purer fuel by which to feed our factories?