There is a book from the 1930’s written by a guy named Albert Jay Nock. The book is called: Our Enemy The State.
It is written on a very high political, abstract level geared mostly to post graduate students. You may have to read some paragraphs 2 or 3 times to grasp the true meaning.
When you do get through it, you will find the answer to most of your questions.
It boils down to this thumbnail; there are two kinds of people in this world, the collectivist and the individualist. The individualist believes in God, the collectivist believes in all kinds of cockamamie.
Plow through it, at the very least you will have tons of food for thought.
Thanks ConradofMontferrat. If I have to read something 2 or 3 times, then I am toast. I will likely fall asleep before getting through the first time.
I think I mostly agree with the idea of two kinds of people, the collectivist and the individualist, but what about the third, the I don’t have a clueist and haven’t engaged my minidist?
Some of those would surely break our way, if we can figure out how to message them.
The following is excerpted from an essay entitled The Responsibility of Citizens in "Our Ageless Constitution."
"What follows, if we are to judge by the history of fallen civilizations, is described by Albert Jay Nock in his book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943):
"... closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence taking over one 'essential industry' after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency, and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labor. Then at some point in this process a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic [weak] social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to 'the rusty death of machinery' and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution."
Can we, then, conclude that no matter by which "ism" it is called, any set of ideas not consistent with the principles underlying America's Declaration of Independence and Constitutional limits on coercive government power is inconsistent with individual liberty?