Every once in a while, random statithinkers will talk loftily of the independence of a country, of the government of a nation, of the representation of a people, etc. At the same time they will dismiss pejoratively any kind of foreign dependence, foreign invasion, subjection to a foreign ruler, etc. Why national borders are magical lines that make a ruler good if he lived within and bad if he lived outside, I can't say, and neither can they. Why a dim common blood line with the ruler should ensure the happiness of the ruled, I have no idea, and neither do they. But here's what I know, that I'll tell you and them.
As an individual, I can say that whoever the ruler is, the ruler is not me. You can say whatever you want about the ruler having lived within the limits of the same magical lines as I, and sharing the same magical blood as I; when it comes to what ruling means, the very principle of ruling is that the ruler shall impose upon the ruled his tastes, his ideas, his preferences, against the ruled individual's will and at the latter's own expense. Anything else is not ruling. And though rulers often pretend to not be what they are, what matters as far as ruling goes is what little or big of actual ruling there actually is. Therefore I don't care about these magical lines of blood or of ink that tie me to the ruler. What I care is that I shall not be tied too tight. I will pick a mild far away ruler over a local bloodthirsty dictator any day. As my taoists predecessors remarked, the ruler who rules less is better. And thus the best ruler is the one that doesn't rule at all -- i.e. no ruler.
independence to the millions of vietnamese people
killed in concentration camp, reduced to hunger,
oppressed at home by John Kerry's best friends,
sunk and raped at sea in their desperate attempts to escape slow painful death.
For all their warts, the alleged puppet governments to American masters
were far more agreeable to the vietnamese than the so-called independent one
(that was no less dependent on support
from the Russian and Chinese genocidal dictatorships
than the previous government was on support from the American democracy).
And let's not even start to talk about Cambodia.
Were the Germans happier under the national Socialist rule
than occupied by the Americans? Think again.
And I don't mean just german Jews.
No, the everyday life of a German under National Socialist rule
was fear of being denounced by his own children.
Of course, life in National Socialist Germany was admittedly
not remotely as bad as life in International Socialist Russia.
Were the Georgians better off under the rule of Stalin? No doubt at least one Georgian was, specifically big Joe. But as for most other Georgians, you can bet their life was one of fearful submission to their ruthless ruler. Their blood connection to the ruler didn't guarantee their happiness. One may argue that they may have thus avoided the genocidal fate that awaited Ukrainians, Letts, Cossacks, Tchetchens, and other people even less related to the ruler. But unless one sustains against all evidence the statithinking premise of a zero-sum game whereby the gain of the ones is the loss of the others and vice versa, Georgians didn't benefit the least from the destruction of other people; they were harmed by the loss of partners that would have help them move forward. Georgians were much worse off under Stalin's totalitarian rule than they would have been under any ruler that didn't rule them so much, even if said mild ruler were being preferentially milder still with other people.
Africans who now starve under the rule of a black man, when they are not simply hacked to death, are a testimony that colonial powers managed to do more evil by leaving than they did by coming. The cases of Zimbabwe, Congo, Rwanda, Ethiopia or Sudan exemplify how local rulers are no less racist and corrupt than colonial rulers, only more stupid and brutish. Leave guns to barbarians, what you obtain is barbarians with guns, not civilized people; they will continue to abide by their primitive customs, except with more violent means to kill their neighbours. And government is nothing but the biggest and meanest of all guns. Add to that that a people stupefied by the oppression of a colonial master sees violence as the main source of success, and will perpetuate the pattern of seeking power through violence.
What should I care that a corsican midget had an empire
built with the blood of french people?
Should I revel in the subjection of the many at his feet,
just because it has received the rosy name of
Instead of celebrating the military successes
of the usurpator who oppressed my ancestors,
I will rather celebrate his ultimate demise
and their eventual though relative deliverance
into the hands of a more lenient and peaceful master.
Not that the Kings of the Franks owe their title to anything else
than past murdering raping and pillaging
-- but I far prefer a king who owes his throne to the mass crimes of past ancestors
to a dictator who owes his power to his own present mass crimes.
are only pretenses for oppressors to trick their victims into not resisting.
What we should care is not the color of the skin or hair of the ruler,
who his descent includes, what language he speaks, whether he is educated or illiterate,
Mormon or Buddhist.
What we should care about the ruler is that he should rule as little as possible.
The Patriot, Mel Gibson says that
he prefers a tyrant one thousand miles away
to one thousand tyrants one mile away.
He is spot on.
If you love your country and your countrymen,
you should not wish them to be subject
to a local domestic independent national government.
You should wish them to be free from any government,
or lacking that, to have as small a government as possible,
be the ruler domestic or foreign.
The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution understood that issue quite well. Yet, the system they agreed to establish in replacement of the English Monarchy grew up to be even worse than that Monarchy ever was: taxes are higher than ever, secessionist dissent has been washed in blood, guns have been restricted and confiscated, money is being forged in peacetime, education has been reduced to a brainwashing mockery, peaceful private transactions are prohibited, people have been stripped of countless rights, and the new masters in Washington and the lobbies around them are worse parasites than the King's Court in London ever was. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made it clear that what mattered was not Democracy per se, but the Liberty of which they sought the preservation through the means of an enlightened Republic. They made it clear that they didn't expect the Republic to be perfect, and that a new Revolution might be the ultimate sanction of its failure. But they didn't foresee that by Establishing a new Power instead of relinquishing power at all, they paved the way for something worse than what they fought against. And thus all that was gained on Independence Day was foresworn when the Constitution was adopted.
I much prefer my life under a mild ruler who doesn't even pretend to represent me through elections, than through a harsher tyrant who tries to deceive me with usurpated legitimacy. I like my own government as far from me as possible. Which is why I left my domestic ruler to wear the looser shackles of a foreign tyrant. And I will welcome whatever will help me loosen the shackles still, and if possible lose them completely.
Today, I will celebrate Independence: I will write a nasty letter to the tax collectors of King George.