Corbett Video Report: The Statist Religion & Disproving the Government God

“Modern-day government is a god and statism is a religion that is responsible for 260,000,000 deaths in the last century alone.”

While the so-called "New Atheists" are spending their energies warning of the violence that is justified by religious belief, they miss the most dangerous, the most irrational, and the most pervasive religion on the planet: statism. Modern-day government is a god and statism is a religion that is responsible for 260,000,000 deaths in the last century alone. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we commit the heresy of denying the statist religion and disproving the government god.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Richard says:

    Well color me a ‘statist’ because I wouldn’t know a better system. I mean as soon as you have a sovereign community of people, you have a state. The sovereignty resides in the individual people and the sovereign community, or state, that is derived from it, protects the interests and the rights of the individual members. It is the best system I can think of. This anti-statism seems to me like a dog chasing its tail. If you follow it all the way through and put all alternatives to the test, you’ll end up right where you started. Because the problem is not the state that fails, it’s the people letting outside powers to usurp the sovereignty of the state, which is the sovereignty of the people themselves.

  2. CuChulainn says:

    credibility is maybe the most precious commodity. those of us who have been following Sibel for more than a decade are convinced of her credibility on those subjects she addresses based on her experience; likewise Corbett’s impressive body of work makes him credible in many areas, and even where he is not what is says is not always totally unfounded.

    the problem is he concocts an ideological kool-aid that discredits him and BFP for newcomers

  3. joetoad says:

    Corbet must be out of material or maybe he saw something etherial religeous wise. I wish he would have called out the “Neoliberals and NeoCons” as the religious/athiests that are running amok now. And what did he take umbrage from Chomsky’s mention of the religeousity of “Free Marketers”, those are about the biggest no nuthing hypocrites that exist, when you dig into it.

  4. joetoad says:

    Revise: [no nuthing]: to: know nothing.

    This was the first time that I had to turn off the Corbet Report, but that’s ok, cause, what the deal is now, is: If you want to tell the real deal and the truth in this current time and so on, you want to maybe… build in some kind of stuff that is completely looney, and insert the important pieces into it, while mixed with basically complete trash, and then it can get out there, but so look out for that as a technique, hell the bastards aren’t that smart, and dadada etc.

  5. CuChulainn says:

    well here’s a nice discussion of V for Vendetta

    for those who don’t read french, he is raising the question of why Hollywood would put out what appears to be a subversive movie such as V–the estimable PC Roberts, Corbett and others have taken the bait, which is to blame the “state” for the actions of the financial elite that has captured the state

    a terrific misdirection which even bfp seems to have fallen for

    if they can convince us to do away with the last vestiges of the rule of law (“statism”) then the predators have open season on us jackrabbits

  6. ProudPrimate says:

    From the transcript I’m working on. I’ve transcribed most of it, but this one sentence is enough for this comment:

    “You guys issue threats and hurt us if we disobey, but you use this weird language as if you’re representing something that you can’t point to and nobody can describe, called government.”

    When I hear these words, including their pronunciation, I just picture a 14 or 15-year old, holding forth on some lame stray thought that came into his head, and nobody among his playmates had any instinct to question it, but they all just like the idea of holding forth on stuff — y’know? It’s fun to hold forth on stuff, and they kind of got right into it, but they were not as good at it as the main guy, because he does this a lot and he’s quite excited about it. It’s become a rather big part of his life.

    Now if an adult had overheard, especially an intelligent adult, say, a teacher — a good teacher, not a lame-brain, but a teacher that thinks about things carefully and has for many years, having looked at the history of the world, and of the United States, might ask him a few questions, just to kind of lead him out into a more real thought platform.

    “Let me ask you a question, can I? What if we took several objects, like these blackboard erasers, and we set them on the desk, like this, so that they make a square enclosure. And we give that arrangement a name — like [chuckles] “square enclosure”. OK? Is that real? OK, so then we put them back on the chalk tray, can we still use the expression “square enclosure”? Or has it now become non-existent? It’s still a real term, isn’t it? Oh, but you say, “it’s not real because you can’t point to it.” But as a concept, isn’t it real? Can’t we reconstruct it? Doesn’t that ARRANGEMENT have an independent existence?

    Some philosophers have tried to say that no one sees the same reality. Everyone sees their reality alone. The term is “solipsism”, from “solo ipse”: “self alone”. But if everybody sees the light change to green, and they all go when that happens, that proves that they all see the same thing, and that this commonality of experience is indeed real.

    The idea that government of the people, by the people and for the people has fallen into disrepair, like an old car that needs maintenance, and doesn’t run very well, or at all sometimes, is a fact of life. Nobody disputes that. The “by the people” part is where the problem lies — they people don’t take the trouble to involve themselves in governing. Cars take a lot of maintenance over their lifetimes, and so does government.

    But to say that government of the people, by the people and for the people doesn’t exist, never existed — that’s like saying the lights don’t turn red and green, and that collisions are not prevented by the stop lights at intersections. I like stop lights. Sometimes I wish they’d change to green so I could go sooner, but I never wish that people were crashing into me because the intersection was unregulated.

  7. Love to see the critical thinking and civil sharing of views. See, the point is not to get people agree and nod: it is about stimulating that critical thinking wanted dead by the establishment.

    I happen to love the episode, and I see the point completely different, but then again I love seeing peopple bringing in their sides/views.

    One of the top qualities of this website I love and want to preserve: presenting views/philosophies/beliefs from all walks of life. I can’t imagine anyone pointing to our site and say: they are Lefties/liberals/Democrats, or, Right Wing/Conservatives/Republicans … I could counter each labeling with dozens of cases. And that’s how I want to keep this site:-)

  8. “Peopple”??!

    You are right: we need editing option/ability for comments!

    We are in the midst of designing our new look for the site, so I’ll put this editing comment ability on the list.

  9. ProudPrimate says:

    After posting (good thing I go to work later tomorrow, because this took a while) — after posting, I read the comments above me, and I just have to say, I concur with every line of every comment so far. I love this site, and all the members of this team. But in my humble opinion, “statism” is “newspeak” — a made-up word for a non-existent phenomenon.

    As Jefferson said in the Declaration, it is to secure the rights of the people that they combine their greater numbers against those few with greater strength. The Barons combined against the King at Runnymede (6/15/1215) to force him to sign the Magna Carta, whence cometh the writ of habeas corpus (it’s in Article 39: “Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super cum ibimus, nec super cum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre.” How can a sheet of parchment bind the hand of a king? Because it is in the heart of the people. And they know he has promised. And they are big enough to force him. It is when they are deceived into DISUNITY, (not deceived into unity!!) that they enter the danger zone.

  10. ProudPrimate says:

    Yes we do need the editor. Because I copied Article 39 from a website without proofreading it. And it was apparently scanned from a paper document, which would explain the error “nec super cum ibimus, nec super cum mittemus”, instead of the actual text, “nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus” — “neither over him will we go, neither over him will we send” – eum means “him”, cum means “with”, but they look alike to the OCR software.

  11. CuChulainn says:

    primate means to say soli ipsi, for the self alone, I think

    it is striking the good work that has been done by libertarian crackpots; their dissent is useful but is strictly circumscribed by their liberalism (in the economic sense)

    so they end up as fellow travelers of the dark side, of Greenspan, Rubin etc. notwithstanding their protests that the Chicago School and the Austrians have nothing to do with each other

    this has become more and more obvious w.; Corbett takes things farther, but, as F. Cousin observes that fascism sought to recreate human community within “la marchandise”, Corbett, Lew R. et al. are trying to imagine human freedom without the community and within the bondage of “la marchandise”

    sorry but I don’t know how to translate this french expression that does not just mean merchandise (the Marxist translation is “commodity fetishism”) but implies a vision of the world as composed of commodities, of human experience as fungible

    freedom is not possible without the community, while “la marchandise” is inimical both to the community and to freedom, it ultimately destroys the possibility of human agency

  12. ProudPrimate says:

    soli ipsi would be correct dative of reference – I had only the etymology in mind at the moment. I should have said “ego solus ipse”, but I was distracted by the philosophical argument, or pseudo argument, at the time.

    I think the Hound of Culann has picked up the scent, though, of these Libertarians. Where they got this idea in the first place that society can exist without common action, that is, coming together as a body and resolving or promising each other that they will support a common purpose, I am at a loss to say, but I strongly suspect, that this is a plant, engineered in the paneled rooms of those whom Trddy

  13. ProudPrimate says:

    I shouldn’t try to do this on a phone – “whom Teddy Roosevelt” called “the malefactors of great wealth”. They are the only ones who truly benefit from this shell game. “Down with taxes, up with property”. This idea of doing away with that common cooperative action known as government is essentially the Nullification doctrine of John C. Calhoun, who held States’ Rights far above the federal, but the right he wished to protect from abuse was the right to own slaves. “Slavery: a Positive Good” was his most famous piece of writing. This is the height of hypocrisy. For a plutocrat it makes perfect sense, but for a common person, it does seem like fetishism, a “doctrine” that’s little besides uncooperativeness dressed in philosophical bunting.

  14. CuChulainn says:

    well, yes, except they don’t really care about society–“who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society.” (M. Thatcher)

    and the sponsors of the “antistatist” Thatcher (honored w. state funeral) are well-known, V. Rothschild, K. Joseph, cf. the sponsors of the “Austrian” economists

  15. 7fr33dom.

    Very Interesting report and comments. Thanks Sibel for the Post.
    I’ve followed the bread crumbs of neo anarchic thought on the alternative media for a while and i do agree some what with one of the criticisms above. that, it’s like ‘chasing it’s own tail.’ They seem to end up with some form of community. but it’s nearly utopian in it’s working. with people volunteering into all social matters. And little need for fixed rules for punishing those who go to the dark side. to name a few speed bumps in the idea. However I do believe the points that James makes need to be made. If not to that extreme, as least to the point where people are shaken from the passive position that most take now. As he said, we all are born into the government system and assume it come from …somewhere. And that “the Government is US” . But it’s a mostly mantra not a thinking persons explanation of the real world. And that’s obvious to anyone that really looks at whats going on and is honest with themselves. That we had little to nothing to do with the governmental “arrangement” that we finds ourselves in. And though constantly reminded that we have ALL of the power and voice we find the reality is we are FAR more INFLUENCED by the gov’t than we exert influence upon it. James’s report should force us to question the whole enterprise, if not to think of ways to chuck it wholesale, at least to revise it so that it is, in reality, responsive to “the people” as the arrangement claims to represent.

    It seems some of you really do love the state. On my part i agree with many of the founders of the U.S.’s sentiment. the less gov’t the better.
    Someone mentioned Calhoun’s motive for loving States Rights as flawed. Well his core reason -slavery- of course was hellish. But the concept of keeping the authority CLOSE to the people is, as most of the founders believed, correct. It’s one of the reasons for separation from England. How can a parliament rule from across the sea what we do here? What gives them the right? Why can’t the local folks make up their own minds and rules?

    In fact in the federalist and anti federalist papers many wondered aloud whether a central federal gov’t could truly “represent” the estimated 4 million people of the states in any honest way with so few representatives(Antifederalist No. 36 ,1 example). Some cities today have that many people and don’t have the amount of representation that was finally reality worked out by the Constitution in those early days.

    And nearly all of the fears of the Anti federalist have been played out before our eyes in history.

    While i appreciate some people’s motives for wanting a strong state to protect the average Joe and Jane. It seems to me that believing that the state is the answer to all ill’s. is as James points out , Just a different kind of Tyranny and oppression. I think Paul Craig Roberts article “While Left and Right Fight- Power Wins” sums it up honestly.

    Lord Aton’s to often quoted – Power corrupts… is true. And the State represents POWER when it get out of the hands of the people and gets to big.
    I hear a lot of frustration in the comments of the posters here, As if the state is the savior. Well A small, JUST state will help I’m convinced but there’s no magic bullet it seems to me. People are going to be unruly, and some are going to try to ride the backs of others . If that means using “the state” there ya go. If it means using land, jobs, and property, ok they’ll use that.

    It’s not property or the state that is the problem, it’s people.

    Decent folks trying to create an arrangement or a series of arrangement to minimize the influence of those that’d be power drunk and the psychopaths is the best we can hope for on earth seems to me.

    the state is no savior. A good tool if small maybe but a dangerous one.
    the dangerous bit i think James makes an extremely good case for. 200+ million innocents dead not counting wars?!
    That shouldn’t be dismiss by saying , ‘your alternatives dumb’.

  16. PP
    I’d also like to defend James on the criticism you made of this line.

    “You guys issue threats and hurt us if we disobey, but you use this weird language as if you’re representing something that you can’t point to and nobody can describe, called government.”

    You say that the Government is an abstraction and any adult should get that.
    Well OK, But i think what he an others are saying with statements like that is that there is nothing backing up the implied compelling force of the “arrangement”. And nothing tangible maintaining the abstract structure of that “arrangement”.
    That it’s a concept pegged in mid air, as far as those born into are concerned.

    No better than the divine right of kings, actually less.

    I’ve heard some put it less forcefully saying simply, “It’s not a legitimate contract.” Since you have not agreed to participate. But are FORCED to comply.
    They have a valid point it seems to me.

    Years ago before i was as politically aware, I concluded that all gov’t’s were basically gangs. We are all born into gang families. Doesn’t mean a gang can’t be nice… but that’s not what the gang is really about is it?

  17. @averye: Thank you for your very articulate and reasoned comment.

    What a great forum/participants!

  18. A couple nights ago, I listened to THIS INTERVIEW WITH LARKEN ROSE on Corbett’s site and thought it would be good for a discussion here, as, like Sibel said, there is a mix of perspectives here.

    I have to say that I thought that the interview was about 99% insults, especially from the guest. Just want to get that reaction out of the way, because I don’t think that it is only disagreement that causes possible hostility in these kinds of discussions. The theme of condescension ran straight through, with expressions of “they just are not capable of thinking about it” if they disagree. I have more respect for Corbett than to turn that back on him. Haven’t really had a chance to respect the guest (Rose) much though, since his tone and style are completely insulting, every time I’ve heard him.

    In a statement at the beginning, they said that there are many kinds of statism, just like there are many kinds of anarchy. Though this seemed like a passing thought to them, it actually is very problematic, especially when comparing yourself to atheists. I mean, how many types of not believing in a supreme deity are there? If you are an atheist, there is just one type. It could be expressed using the Great Spaghetti Monster analogy. I don’t wake up in the morning and think to myself “There’s no Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky.” Being an atheist is not a type of belief, in other words, and there aren’t any shades.

    It seems that anarchy could be thought of the same way. After all, what is “anarcho-capitalism”? It sounds a little like “atheistic deism”. Hmm… This relates to the Venus Project advocates as well. It’s not government, it’s just a prescribed economy.

    I’m going to watch this video now. (I thought it was the Rose interview when I started my comment. Sorry; I hope it’s still relevant, I think he must have referenced the Rose interview in it.)

  19. Ok I watched this one – basically the same but a liytle less insulting. Here are a couple more points:

    1. I think what we have now could be better described as ANCAP than a stste. Those in power do not abide by any laws and are not accountable to any society.

    2. The state is defined as abstract, which is different than religion.

    3. It was a little irresponsible to say, at the end, he’s not trying to slight any religion, only the state. And that religious people should be careful not to let the state get in the way of their religion. This seems inconsistent and a little scary.

    4. My biggest fear, regarding ANCAP and Venus, are that they might give people a rationale to do nothing about our current state of affairs. That it might be better to have more societal collapse, in order to bring in the new system, like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Now where have I heard that before?

    Btw, previous comments were excellent and said what I wanted to say, much more eloquently. Thanks!

  20. Re: #4, Corbett is doing A LOT about our current state of affairs and I really appreciate his work.

  21. HAL 9000 says:

    There is a lot I want to say about this piece from Corbett, but I am facing some work deadlines which prevent me from doing it now. Yet I have to say something because the web page structure of BFP is such that these discussions have a very limited life span as the story gets pushed down and off the front page, and because of the comments that have already been made.

    I was very interested in Larken Rose’s thesis when first exposed to it. But after spending considerable time reading, listening, and otherwise researching it, I came to the same conclusion as some of the commenters above – you end up right back where you started. In the end, Larken Rose isn’t able to eliminate the evils he attributes to the state, he simply gives them new form with different names (definitions). Furthermore, he fails to eliminate the contradictions he says are inherent in authority and the state.

    Despite what Corbett claims, I don’t think his assertions in this piece hold up to scrutiny. Yet he asserts them with such certainty and dismisses the alternative view with such disdain that one must conclude Corbett has a thorough and complete understanding of the issues in question. For that reason, I want to issue a public challenge to James Corbett to defend his assertions in a discussion/debate. A person so certain of his position should have no problem defending them against a challenge, in fact, he should welcome it.

    Even so, I don’t expect Corbett to accept this challenge. Assuming he does not, then I hope there will be an opportunity to address his claims at BFP by some other means.

    Sibel, would you be willing to forward my challenge to James?

  22. TopGunI says:

    Sibel – you said it yourself in a discussion with James. You asked what is meant by the “government” does this or the “government” does that. Most political figures are nothing but puppets for the real power behind them – being the military-industrial, oil, banking complex.

    And then this simply begs the question: If you eliminate “government” what happens to that real power behind it? Does it magically disappear and stop doing bad things?

    As several have pointed out already – governments don’t kill people – people kill people. And those people willing to kill will not magically disappear with the disappearance of government.

    Although he does not say so in the piece, it is pretty clear that Corbett has a substitute religion to propose in place of government – the “free market.” Where government does not restrain evil deeds, the free market will do so. The name for this new religion is “Anarcho-capitalism.” Another name you could give to it would be corporate tyranny, because the corporations would run wild in the vacuum left behind by removing all government. Corbett quoted Chomsky, but then took exception to Chomsky’s stating that blind faith in the “free markets” was also a religion. Corbett took exception to that statement by Chomsky because he evidently has adopted such a blind faith.

    Presumably nobody on this Site favors blind allegiance to government or approves government abuses. But the only solution I have ever been able to identify is the hard work of educating the people as to the root causes of abusive government. The magic wand solutions as proposed by Larken Rose and now being championed by James C represent utopian fantasies. Saying that government is evil and problems are all solved by removing government is conceptually the same as the Marxist creed that capitalism is evil and problems are all solved by removing capitalism. Such simplified system cures simply do not work. They are short-cut solutions to the people taking responsibility for doing the hard work of doing what is necessary for maintaining a fair and just society.

  23. ProudPrimate says:

    @averye says:
    “But the concept of keeping the authority CLOSE to the people is, as most of the founders believed, correct.”

    But from whom? The idea that the authority should be held by the people is one that none will argue against. What isn’t stated clearly or thought through is, who is it that is usurping this authority? And if the “state” is done away with, do these spouters of grandiose ideas suppose that no one will rush in to fill that vacuum? OR RATHER THAT THE SAME POWERS THAT HAVE PARTIALLY HIJACKED THE STATE WILL SIMPLY DO THE SAME DIRTY WORK OUT IN THE OPEN, WITH NOTHING TO HINDER THEM?

    Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.

    I suggest that the death of the 230 million are attributable to forces other than “the state” and will still operate without such an institution present. Look at the high rates of death in Rwanda or Sierra Leone — smaller populations, but high, high percentages — with states that are virtually non-existent.

    Listen to what Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, (d. 1940), the most highly decorated Marine in US history, had to say after his retirement:

    “War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

    I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

    I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

    There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

    It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

    I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

    I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 [where have I heard that name before?]. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

    During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

    SEE THAT?? THE FLAG FOLLOWS THE DOLLAR. Smedley blames the financiers who own the politicians, not the political system itself. Sure, something is wrong. We all know something is wrong. The dam is leaking bad.

    But if you take away what little strength we have, thinking that’s our problem, then find out it rather was the thing that was protecting us against all along, make sure you can run fast.

  24. ProudPrimate says:

    TopGunI Says: “the hard work of educating the people”

    Exactly. Government by the people doesn’t work if the people are not doing that good work, or not doing it correctly — that is, if The Many are being diverted from their right path by deceitful propaganda into another path that serves The Few.

  25. For some reason, I thought there would be more comments in support of what Corbett is evangelizing 😉 I have heard a few comments recently from people who tried ANCAP on for size, then regained their former incapability to be as smart, or smug, as those who really know what’s going on. Is this the case for many here?

    I’m not sure why I thought there were more in our mix. Either way, I’m really glad that our BFP show producer line up covers the spectrum so well. Progressive, Libertarian, Collectivist, ANCAP. We’ve got it all and should be able to entertain these ideas without as much emotional frustration as can be expected in other forums. (This actually disappointed me, concerning the way Corbett colors his comments on this topic in particular.)

  26. @ProudPrimate: “…who is it, that is usurping this authority? “

    Would you agree that the usurpers are indeed ANCAPS?

  27. ProudPrimate says:

    I will google it and get back to you

  28. @Sibel,

    “I happen to love the episode, and I see the point completely different, but then again I love seeing peopple bringing in their sides/views.”

    This is a little ambiguous to me, because I don’t know whether you see the point completely different than Corbett or than the previous comments. Please clarify – thanks!

    I agree with your critical thinking comments.

  29. Sorry, ANCAP = Anarcho-Capitalist

  30. ProudPrimate says:

    Okay I’ve read part of the Wikipedia article and I guess I know a little bit about what you mean by ANCAPs, and no I don’t consider them to be the usurpers. They sound like honest, perhaps confused people, but not the kind that are tempted to crime.

    In my book the usurpers are the ones that Teddy Roosevelt called the “malefactors of great wealth” who have a mental condition, such that when they get the money they’re of course not satisfied, so they go for power and control.

    I think its a compulsive disorder, but generally speaking, the people at large have plenty of numbers, and could free themselves. But they don’t comprehend what it is they’re confronting. They are easily confused and misled into decisions that work against their own best interests.

    Let me sketch out for you my idea a successful society:

    Banking would cease to be a private matter, but would operate entirely as credit unions on the small scale, where the members are the owners, and on the medium and large scales like the highly successful Bank of North Dakota, the only state bank in the United States, founded in 1919 by a bunch of Swedish farmers who had no love of Socialism, but who saw that they were being squeezed off their land by Wall Street speculators who were artificially and fraudulently depressing the price of grain. They rallied and passed the law that created the Bank of North Dakota, requiring all state revenue to be deposited therein, and it has been a great blessing to the state. 40% of every dollar you spend goes to pay interest on loans incurred by the manufacturer or producer, and in all other states that money goes to Wall Street banks and never returns. In North Dakota it goes to the Bank of North Dakota, and is plowed right back into the community. I suppose this is the ultimate heresy for free marketeers.

    Further, I would envision a country that did not depend on centralized – read:monopolized – energy sources, but ran on electricity or hydrogen generated from wind and solar. LOCALLY OWNED WIND AND SUNSHINE. EVERY HOME IS INDEPENDENT! There’s more than enough. If we cared enough to pursue it we could have it. But the malefactors of great wealth put the smash on it even as they’re putting the smash on the price of gold. But they won’t prevail in the long run. Look up the National City Bus Lines in wikipedia: a cabal of industrialists in the 30s including Standard Oil, Firestone, General Motors and I think JP Morgan who brought up the trolley systems in numerous large American cities, ripped up the tracks, tore down the electric supply and put in smoky rubber-tired buses. They have no shame. They will destroy the world for another dollar.

  31. Thanks, ProudPrimate. My question was to point out the irony in this presentation. Corbett, an ANCAP, is blaming the state for the ills of the world. But, if you look at who is really pulling the strings, you will see that they have no laws. The shadow government is not a government at all, but a bunch of anarcho capitalists who have enough power to keep the government at bay.

  32. ProudPrimate says:

    If you mean “Lawless Capitalists”, they are certainly that!

    What do you think of Public Banking? It is my theme nowadays.

  33. I have been hearing about that North Dakota state bank a lot recently and agree that it’s a good idea. I could swear that South Dakota used to have one too – maybe it was just a name – First Bank of South Dakota. I’ll have to look it up. I know SD used to have a state cement plant – another good idea. Personally, I’m all for state owned infrastructure and resources. Public ownership. Public libraries, parks, forests. I’m not anti-business ownership by individuals. I like the idea of local control, as much as possible, when it makes the most sense. I think there are some things that should be consistent across states too, and therefore federal in nature.

    Some of the best suggestions I’e heard lately are from TopGunI – he even mentioned a government that one could opt out of. Would like to hear more about that…

    And more about your thoughts on state owned banks, please.

  34. CuChulainn says:

    TR’s inveighing against malefactors of great wealth was an accusatory inversion

  35. @ProudPrimate.

    OK, I said that unchecked power is bad right? that’d include corporate power.
    is it worse? I don’t know.
    Stalin, Moa and Pol Pot both atheist and Full on statist/communist. did plenty of harm. millions slaughtered for the greater good. Promoting programs for the people right? And as Bakunin points out they would they did it via a “scientific” vision of what they thought society, the economy and people OUGHT to be. How people should live, according to the vision of the state. was that the vision of “the people” or “the gov’t that is US” that did that?

    Usually the cooperate powers and state powers work hand in hand. look at Monsanto using the State to regulate and prosecute small farmers out of biz.

    why isn’t the state “protecting” the little guy? Does monsanto have gun? Look at the global regs that are trying to get in play. Yes they are initiated by the fat cats but they are implemented and enforced by the state that is distant from the people. U.N. regs made binding by treaty. And the “representatives” of the people say OK fine. While Joe & Jane doe sleep. They wake up and find a new STATE reg telling them their organic herbs are illegal. Codex Alimentarius

    As I said, IMO, a SMALL, local and JUST gov’t is ideal. not perfect.
    And personally, If there was a way to to do it fairly equitably, I’d ban monopoly and collusion of corporations. Among other things.

    But I really can not see a Big state helping anyone but itself and it’s Big buddies.
    To me your example of Smeadly Butler is perfect. Big corps and big gov’t working together for the ultimate beat down. The state didn’t go off , in this case, alone to those foreign countries. It was lead by the Corporations. But the Corporations didn’t fund the military actions or create the standings armies or the ships or the draft, it just partnered with the monster “that is US” that was armed and ready to… as Smeadly Butler put it… “kill kill kill” because the president said so.

    General Butler had some great ideas to reign in the States power to go to war. I still think they are valid. AND he kept the Corporations from making a complete coup and taking over the reins of “US” outright.

    Corporations, and Banks are an horrific problem but only an alert people and Just responsive, state can deal with them. Many laws that we have on the books could take care of much of the problem we have with Corporations RIGHT NOW. Why aren’t Wall Street bankers in Jail TODAY. where is the STATE.? why isn’t “the gov’t which is US” putting these huge thieves in Jail? the Republicans won’t do it the Democrats won’t do it. the “impartial” Judges won’t do it. the bureaucrats won’t regulate. I mean the State is Huge. The Anarchist don’t have a city block that practices their theories. But the State is HUGE. But it seems you want them even BIGGER to deal with the corporations . How much bigger do they have to be? Aren’t there enough laws on the books NOW? Aren’t there enough Jails NOW? aren’t there enough police NOW? Enough capability to spy on us all NOW? Enough bureaucrats NOW? enough Soldiers NOW?

    How much bigger does the gov’t have to be before they are strong enough so they… “the gov’t who is US” can FIX the bad ol corporations?

    Seems to me it just a lack of will… lets be frank… collusion.

    If your solution is to Outlaw private property and divest assets, well it’s been tried .
    People don’t like it. the leadership still becomes more equal than others.

    i do think there’s a middle ground but it hard ground to get and hard to hold.

    At this point I’m convinced of this. Both full on socialism and raw unchecked capitalism feed the dark side of human nature. It’s debatable which is worst i suppose, but frankly I don’t think we have chose either.

  36. @ Sibel, Thanks.

  37. In a recent podcast of some kind, Corbett mentioned that North Dakota bank very favorably. While recognizing that it wasn’t his preferred situation (to have a state), this bank was a good thing within our current state. I can look for it, but I’m 99% sure it was him.

  38. CuChulainn says:

    “The Anarchist don’t have a city block that practices their theories”

    ON THE CONTRARY these “anarchists” have implemented their theories in the whole western world, with disastrous results

    William K. Black claims that inappropriate deregulation helped create a criminogenic environment in the savings and loan industry, which attracted opportunistic control frauds like Charles Keating, whose massive political campaign contributions were used successfully to further suppress regulatory oversight. The combination substantially delayed effective governmental action, thereby substantially increasing the losses when the fraudulent Ponzi schemes finally collapsed and were exposed. After the collapse, regulators in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) were finally allowed to file thousands of criminal complaints that led to over a thousand felony convictions of key Savings and Loan insiders.[25] By contrast, between 2007 and 2010, the OCC and OTS combined made ‘zero’ criminal referrals; Black concluded that elite financial fraud has effectively been decriminalized.[26]

  39. ProudPrimate says:

    No, I repeat my quote from above: the solution has to be, as TopGunI Says: “the hard work of educating the people”.

    “While Joe & Jane Doe sleep.” Absolutely right. That is the nub of it, right there. Everything else we say here is more or less irrelevant, “While Joe & Jane Doe sleep.” Now I agree with Sam Adams that Sibel loves to quote, but until the “brush fires” catch a breeze and find some tinder, nothing will happen.

    Please understand, the Bank of North Dakota doesn’t prevent the ownership of private banks. In fact it partners with them. It’s primarily a bankers’ bank. But it is hated by Wall Street because it does what they do without the gouging, and – that’s cheating, right? LOL

    There’s a major media campaign afoot says the LA Times, by the major banks, to take away the tax-free status of credit unions. According to them, the people shouldn’t have the right to conduct business among themselves in a cooperative structure absent the profit motive.

    As to Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot, these were ideas that went wildly awry. I refuse to take the blame for them. My recommendation is the people combining to defend themselves against the powerful. As often happens, powerful people hijack such movements in their beginning stages, and the end is very bad.

    Alexander II, the Liberator, Tsar of Russia from 1855 till his murder by an anarchist’s bomb in 1881, friend and ally of Lincoln, freed the serfs in Russia ironically two years before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Russian peasants had been serfs since time immemorial, meaning they belonged to the land. When land was sold the serfs went with it. Alexander’s attempt to free them failed because it didn’t provide any basis for their economic survival. They were free to buy the land they’d been born on, but they had no means. His son Alexander III came in and was a fierce tyrant, bolstered by the father’s murder. Eventually Nicholas was killed by the Bolsheviks. The attempt at democracy under Kerensky was crushed by Lenin’s Reds. Even today, the level of freedom in Russia leaves something to be desired, but its far better than it was in 1850. The grip of the Old Powers was so great that breaking free was a nasty business.

    The same thing happens with Occupy and with the anti-G8 protests in Seattle and Genoa, &c. Honest protests are marred by the “Black Bloc” coming in in masks and breaking window, torching police cars, and such like. Some of these people are probably sincere, some just hooligans out for a “good time” as they see it, some of them are certainly cops (agents provocateurs) as was proven in Quebec at Montebello on film. Probably most if not all of the Black Bloc would call themselves anarchists. But then so does Chomsky, but with a twist. He believes in government, as long as its organized from the bottom up.

    Again, in China, during the Boxer Rebellion, the Boxers tried to get free of the Gunboat Diplomacy that saw Herbert Hoover in China as the world’s leading civil engineer and geologist, prospecting for oil. If you know the opera Madama Butterfly by Puccini, you see the young naval officer Lt. Pinkerton takes a bride with great ceremony, then comes back at the end of a couple of years with his American wife to claim his son, who is given to him as Butterfly takes her life inside with her father’s ceremonial dagger.

    Who knows what the tides of history could have been, in what way different? But China under the present government is in better shape to experience freedom than it was under the Dowager Empress and the Western powers’ influence. But they have been down for centuries and they have a long way to go. Vietnam sent young Ho Chi Minh to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1918 after WWI to ask that his people be — not free, not left alone, but only to be treated as equals with the French Colonial powers.

    He was blown off by the Great and Good like a piece of lint, and lo and behold, he went to Moscow, where he received a hearing. Louis, Lord Mountbatten, who had been WWII Plenipotentiary of that region of the world, said during the Vietnam War before he was killed by an IRA bomb, that, “if the French had not been so intransigent”, i.e., by insisting on partition, “all this could have been avoided”.

    I probably forgot several things I wanted to say, but — LOL — that’s always true!

  40. ProudPrimate says:

    Bill Black is the best. Also Michael Hudson and Stephanie Kelton, all three at U. Missouri K.C.

    Here’s a street placard I did of Hudson appearing on the Keiser Report:

  41. I would like to change this discussion to a real life problem; that is the imminent bankruptcy of Detroit.
    The solution seems to be the liquidation of the city as to its borders and the formation of autonomous self-operating
    neighborhoods. All services would be privately produced and there would be no liability obligations of the new to the old or by anyone within the State of Michigan. Bondholders, pension owners would undoubtedly receive nothing. The existing power structure would no longer exist and numerous ANCAP communities would evolve.
    It is impossible to predict what would happen but the one thing we know is that the existing government/state system failed. Go for it commentators. I want to hear your thoughts.

  42. One caveat that I must add to the case study of the new Detroit. All neighborhoods created would trade freely with each other and there would be no political borders. Voluntary exchange with full recognition of property rights both physical and personal would be in play.

  43. @ralph, who’s going to enforce those property rights? Who says they would be in play?

  44. Do the new neighborhoods have borders?

  45. PPrimate
    i don’t mean to get into a back and forth on this. I think we both/all want more justice and equity. You seem convinced the a powerful state is the best solution to that. Even though you didn’t answer my questions as to how big is big enough or divestment.

    its fine for us to disagree. It just seems to me a few uncorrupted judges, prosecutors, and congress people in the current system could go a looong way to alleviating many of the issues we all are concerned with.

    ANd that the number of laws on the books, where each of us is committing multiple felonies a day, could EASILY be applied by clever attorneys and cleared eye juries to crack corrupt corporate power and sit many CEO’s in jails across the country and cripple predatory players (-doesn’t hurt to dream-).

    But you mention the banks:
    “There’s a major media campaign afoot says the LA Times, by the major banks, to take away the tax-free status of credit unions. According to them, the people shouldn’t have the right to conduct business among themselves in a cooperative structure absent the profit motive.”

    Again here we have a case of big corps appealing to the STATE to shut down free association. The Banks aren’t hiring thugs off the street to burn the Credit Unions down they are hiring the State to be the muscle.
    Do you see my point?

    Yes more education is needed, but the People in the Gov’t NOW should live up to their constitutional oaths as agents of the people under a limited gov’t..
    The anarchic freedom of the people to Use Credit Unions is a PAIN to the Banks. All the State needs to do is protect the Credit Unions from criminal attacks. There no need for the state to CO-OP the credit union and make it a state entity to protect it or make it work.

    this is kind of the middle ground I’m talking about. I’m not an Anarchist ..yet. I believe the Gov’ts proper role is one of guard dog and arbiter. Not Momma.

    I guess we can agree to disagree and do what can to point out and resist the real criminals state and corporate. Which are not You or me. Our conflict of visions is important in the abstract but we are in the midst of a corrupt state today. It must be resisted at points and encouraged to do right in others it seems to me. in the end it’s just people behaving badly.


  46. Hi averye and ProudPrimate,

    Might I suggest that there are some unknowns involved and that the size of a valid government can change, as needed. Also, to averye’s point about government being used as thugs, I think we can all agree that when they act as thugs, they are not acting as part of valid government. Just like we have now, the Lawless Capitalists (possibly ANCAPs) behind the scenes, manipulating our tools and calling it government. Compromising leaders, blackmailing officials, threatening voters, and possibly trying to turn educated youth into Venus ANCAPs, restless for a total collapse.

  47. @ averye

    A number of points that I would like to make.

    Who said that we need more or bigger government? You are correct that there are more than enough existing laws to take care of the bad guys. It’s not a question of having more or bigger government. Less government and more decentralized is better.

    When you credit Corbett for trumpeting the point that the existing system has failed – that’s fine, but also not much use without a reasoned explanation for the cause of the failure and/or a reasoned solution.

    There are two fundamental causes for the failure of the American government. One is the monetary system. The old quote attributed to Rothschild (authentic or not) still says it all: “Give me control of Nation’s currency and I care not who makes the laws.” The government needs to control the currency, instead of allowing the banking cartels to print money and charge interest for it. BTW – you said that the corporations do not fund the wars. The studies I am aware contradict you. Income taxes do nothing but pay the interest on the debt and corporate taxes have always been sufficient to fund the military – income tax did not come about until the Federal Reserve was created.

    The second fundamental cause of failure is the political cartel that is our two-party system — the Republicans and Democrats.

    And these two problems get back to the hard work solution of educating the people, because the people have been brain-washed by the ruling power controlled media and education system that the government controls our economy instead of the banking cartels that control the currency. And the people have been brain-washed into believing that Political cartel that is the Democrat and Republican parties answer to the people instead of the ruling power.

    So the ANCAPs believe that, without exposing these deceptions and educating the people, the ruling powers can be de-fanged and defeated merely by removing “government” from the equation. This is the height of naivete, which I will address in a separate post.

  48. What the ANCAPs fail to understand is that the ruling powers currently rule the people through the intermediary authority that is the “government,” but ruling powers would be more than happy to rule the people directly and to do away with this intermediary authority – WHICH IS PRECISELY what the ANCAPS wish to give them.

    Representative “democratic” governments can and do serve the people in various instances. Perhaps some of the South American countries are truly democratic right now, as are some local communities or even States at times.

    At the level of the United States government, however, democratic rule is a ruse and a farce. But it is a deception that the ruling powers need in order to control the people. The ruling powers are content to employ this deception, but it is by no means to their advantage that they are forced to employ this deception. If their deception failed, so would their power. But if the people themselves were to voluntarily relinquish their demand for self-governance — to voluntarily walk away from a system where they participate in the creation of law — the rules by which their society operates …. The Ruling Powers could not be more happy – this is there wet dream. They have no need or desire for Nations and the self-governance ruse, except to the except that the people demand these appearances of autonomy and self-rule. If the people are willing to forgo them voluntarily, then a world run by international conglomerate corporations would be fully achieved in the present and would no longer be a future goal of the ruling elite.

    The ANCAPS are completely blind to this. Corbett is completely blind to this. This scene from Network says it all:

  49. Top gunni,
    I do see your point. I’ve mentioned twice I’m no anarchist or pure capitalist. But if i can play Anarcho-capitalist’s advocate for a second, how do the corps run the show without the force of arms, prisons, courts, and armies of bureaucratic and police doing their “legal” bidding?
    Sure they have extreme means of production But how long would it be before people took the means over if they tried to starve people, or deprive them of oil? Without the state protecting corporate assets it would be completely self destructive to their power.
    They could, i suppose, hire guns, “Pinkerton men” “blackwater” which is possible but the transition would be tough and the “legal” authority non-existent.

    Anarcho-capitalism would be like the Wild West IMO. Depending on the local conditions things could go any number of ways locally. But if world wide so called benevolent gov’t goes bad where do you run?

    There is no utopia.

  50. @averye, can you consider that Anarcho-capitalism is what we have now, not self-governance?

    When you talk about the state protecting the corps, I don’t think that is the state, it is the corps protecting the corps, under the illusion of a state.

Speak Your Mind