The Purpose of Democratic Government

As Einstein noted, the only real purpose of government is to act as the largest collectively-owned insurance company, to defend our collective needs (to basics like air, water, food, shelter, health and education) while not pandering to any private wants, and to use economies of scale (bulk buying) to get the best price to do so – period.

We certainly don’t need the polemic Punch ‘N’ Judy puppet show of the right wing (“We NEVER need government, for anything!”) versus the left wing (“We ALWAYS need Government, for everything!”) to divide and conquer us. Just keep the needs separate from the wants, and “governing” isn’t rocket surgery!


Abolish all political parties and the politicians would go back to being PUBLIC servants from being (as they currently are) only corporazi-owned sales-puppets.

Since only collectivist liberals believe in selling victimology and in group-might-made-rights, in us-versus-them conformity, and Conservatives believe in live and let live individual rights and responsibilities, ONLY liberals oppress people; Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity; liberals believe in equality of outcome, which is an attack on those who actually try to succeed, (“Makers”) in favor of those that don’t (“Takers”).

Collective needs – to air, water, food, shelter (needs being those things without which we suffer pain and/or die) are “collective,” because if someone poisons any of them in a certain area, EVERYONE is affected.

Those we hire to manage the insurance company are not parents nor owners, they are servants.

Referring back to Einstein’s take on government being the largest collectively-owned insurance company – I have a right to pay taxes for defensive services rendered (&/or to organize a group of citizens, which can hire a manager and call it “the government” if I want to, don’t I?!

And we can call our little club a “county” and place geographical limits to membership, and even make rules that our children will automatically become members at birth, and so be obliged to pay the premiums (unless they want to leave the area, and go join another insurance coop) etc…!

I have the right to force you to join my insurance company, (or private club) if it involves MY LAND & property – i.e: if I got there first. You’re on my property if I got there first, and if you’re my kid, there’s no way you paid for it. And if you paid for your property, in which pre-existing jurisdiction does it exist? Who paid to build the road for you to get there? You are someone’s child, because you aren’t Adam nor Eve – others were here first, and that’s just a fact you have to live with.

As long as my children are mine, I can inform them that, upon attaining their majority, they will be obliged to pay into my insurance, if they intend to stay on my lands; I will also tell them they are free to amend those policies through Democracy.

And, while insurance companies don’t force you to buy their product, the social contract surely does: If you declare you want the “right” to take risks with others’ properties, while downloading the responsibility onto them, you’d be in trouble: for instance, if you were a newcomer who said:

“I’m going to buy this car and drive it around your neighborhood without insurance, because I’ve chosen not to care about either my life or your property! Since you have paid for insurance, YOU can pay for any damage to your stuff I might cause! Whee!”

In such a hypothetical situation, it’s clear that your threatening stance is a choice to attack the others first. When you live near others, you either agree to obey the Golden Rule of Law and morality (to not attack first) and remain civilized, or you don’t (declaring yourself to be an outlaw/criminal)!

One can always bargain for a better insurance policy by replacing the managers – or by simply threatening to – by voting; it’s called “Democracy.”

We all need someone to administer the insurance money to project and maintain the needs (to basic infrastructure to maintain all that life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness) our insurance pays bulk-buying rates for. We simply vote for (hire) whoever listens to us and accepts the contract to project and maintain our infrastructure needs, not someone who wants to steal our money to pander to private wants (which should be illegal anyway). “We all” is all the people living within geographical boundaries created to sustain the insurance company.

The only real function of any government personnel (Public SERVANTS) is the simple projection and maintenance of infrastructures needed to defend the populace of citizens from disasters both natural and man-make (i.e: crimes). it isn’t “rocket surgery;” more of a custodial/ janitorial type of job. In fact it’s so simple that they shouldn’t even have to be told how to do it, beyond the caveat of: “Deal with all the collective needs before even considering private wants – and even then, immediately and permanently disregard those private wants anyway!”

They should always do what we tell them to – to use our insurance premiums (“tax” money) to defend our collective needs, not to pander to any private wants, to project and maintain the infrastructure necessary to allow us to live, and to have the liberty to pursue happiness, period. If they do anything less, chances are they’ll be committing crimes, and they’d be in breach of contract and so subject to fines and pay cuts at the very least. In any group enterprise, we have to trust someone to hold the pot of money we all pony up for the cause.

A bulk-buying non-profit cooperative insurance company (aka “government”) SHOULD be the most efficient way to defend our collective NEEDS. To leave our needs in the hands of for-profit enterprises is to enable addictions industries. Capitalism and free-market economics (supply and demand) only work for wants, not needs; if I CAN jack the prices for needs up, (limit supply) the demand does not, can not, and will not ever go down.

Here’s how our traditional “First-Past-The-Post” Democracy really works:

It’s the exact same thing as hiring a servant – say 4 applicants arrive, (currently what we pretend represent “party” positions) and you (the 10 voters/company’s owners) look at their qualifications, so you decide to rank them. You end up with: candidate 1 gets 4 votes, candidate 2 gets 3 votes, candidate 3 gets 2 votes, and candidate 4 gets 1 vote.

So you only hire the 1, best qualified applicant, and YOU DON’T OWE THE REST OF THEM A JOB just for showing up and applying, either!!!

Or, to put it another way:

People who want to “reform” (change) our traditional First-Past-The-Post, one person/one vote system, whine:

“The ruling party only got 40% of the total vote!

That means 60% voted against them!

That’s not fair!”

This is a standard statistical distraction tactic which is always used by liberals; don’t fall for it!

Say it goes like this:

40 % Conservatives
30 % Liberals
20 % Outright Commies
10% all others (fringe parties/flakes).

=100 %

OK, so the vote is to hire (‘elect’) ONE representative, who “only” got 40 % of the votes (because we, as the “companys’ owners” decided they were the most qualified of the 4 job-applicants).

There was only the one job opening, so it also doesn’t mean anybody owes the losers any second-place jobs!

Also, although overall the winner DIDN’T get the WHOLE other 60 % of the vote, it doesn’t mean ALL those nay-sayers and dissenters voted against them, either.

In fact, it also really only means that, although 60 % of the people didn’t vote for the winner, nevertheless, a full 90, 80, and 70 % of the people also didn’t vote for the other (losing) candidates, respectively, either!


If those humans appointed to be lawmakers and the judiciary refuse to enforce the laws, would that not automatically make them criminal negligents who have abdicated their positions of power over us?

Under the Golden Rule of Law, which defines all situational morality, which is most simply put as: “Do Not Attack First!” we all have only one right, and one responsibility: Our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack others first. After all, when one chooses to attack first, one self defines as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it.

Bear in mind that threats (not if/then warnings) are already (psychological) attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, harassment, coercion, duress, extortion; “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are already crimes. Attacking second (or “counter-attacking”) in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others, is mandatory for true deterrent justice.

Criminals are those who have chosen to breach this social contract by reneging on their responsibility, and so have lost the right to not be (counter) attacked.

Since even small kids already instinctively know this as the “But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule, there’s really no excuse to not agree to obey it, and it’s this simple basic rule which is what the legality of all sub-sequent laws, rules, and regulations depend for their legality. No real need for any weird notions like Hoppe’s “Private Law Societies” or groups to enforce them.

In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can (or will) govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT (or will not) govern themselves.


As for politicians: until and unless we eliminate political parties, those salesmen pretending to be “the government” will destroy the country.

Politicians don’t represent the people – they only represent their parties. And their parties only represent those who pay them – who happen to be the exact same people for each party.

So ALL politicians are only treasonous sales-puppets, foisted on us by their corporazi sales-masters. Their real job is to sell us all out by selling off our country to the highest bidders – usually by buying our enemies’ money to fund their own pet projects. The faster the turnover (more sales per minute) the more quick profits, even at low-low fire-sales prices.

It’s a race to the bottom.

So, let’s just FIX DEMOCRACY! And here’s how: If we just hold 2 quick, back-to-back elections each time (the first, as usual, to hire the worker’s pool of our Public SERVANTS from our districts, and the second where WE ALL appoint them DIRECTLY to their cabinet portfolio positions) then we eliminate their self-interested conflicts of loyalty-dividing political “parties,” (which always only “party” at our direct expense, anyway,) forever!



About unclevladdi

This entry was posted in media, politics, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Purpose of Democratic Government

  1. quotingislam says:

    Is there such utopia like you said in the last part? I hope so…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s