Anarchy vs. Statism

There is a wide-spread misconception and it has to do with the term "statism." The purpose of this blog article is to nip it in the bud once and for all. Statism, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is:

"Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry."

The common misconception about statism is that it is "bad" and anarchy should replace it. Anarchy is simply no government. In anarchy there is neither law nor order, therefore, when disputes arise between parties there are no established systems the grieving party can proceed with to initiate a claim and seek remedy. Anarchy is not the answer.

What most people fail to understand is statism is necessary. The problem, however, is what form of statism they choose. People must either choose to government themselves through the Right of Self-Determination/Self-Exile/Self-Government or they allow others to rule over them. The bottom line is contracts and most people do not understand contracts, let alone the laws governing them.

Many years ago I was reading a brief biography on entrepreneur, lecturer and author, Robert Kiyosaki and Mr. Kiyosaki went straight to the point. The only way to create and keep wealth is to learn contracts, build a business that will sustain itself and service as many people as you possibly can. Everything you see at play on this planet is because of contracts be it money, religion, politics, education, everything. As a citizen, a contract was created to designate your role in society. It was the United States Constitution and it provides for you to simply pay taxes and don't question the public debt. See the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, if you are not agreeable to paying taxes via the Sixteenth Amendment as a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen, then you are not agreeable to your political status as a Citizen in the United States and neither favorable to the Constitution nor it's government. To top it off, you cannot directly sue the United States for a redress of grievances. Through the Incorporation Doctrine of the United States Supreme Court you are required to seek approval from your respective state and your state must take up your cause in Federal Court against the United States. There is no way around it because you are not a party to the Constitution. The Supreme Court gives you your privileges, not the Constitution itself. See Padelford, et al. v. Mayor of the City of Savannah, et al. (GA, 1854) at p. 6.

You have only two options at this juncture: (1) Remain a citizen, stop complaining and slave away, or (2) Vary your agreement, contract with others who want to self-govern and stop being subject to the whims of laws you are disagreeable to.