In A Society ... Adventure, Property, and The State

In a society that has destroyed all adventure, the only adventure left is to destroy that society.

- "The Anti-Media" Facebook photo

I don't agree with that quote, but I believe in the sentiment. There could be multiple ways to reformulate that quote to better reflect an anarchocapitalist/libertarian ethic.

When __________ destroys all __________, the only __________ left is to destroy that __________.

But first, what is questionable about the quote? Well, has society really destroyed adventure? The easiest response is: no, and that the government is really the culprit. But in that interpretation one needs to address the culpability of society in the aggressive usurpation of power by the government. And what is "adventure?" Is it really the act of being alive? Has the society-enabled state deadened the adventure of being alive?

Credit: HighExistence.com

The quote is in your face, shocking, but to  be more accurate and hopefully constructive:

When a state destroys all property,

the only ethically act left is to destroy that state.

Of course, destroying the state does not require violence.  You can destroy a state simple through, for example, nullification, and similar nonviolent means.

Take-Away Review: American Nations

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

I finished it. And it was a pretty good book, for me, since I finished it faster than I finish most books.

Colin Woodard definitely showed some of his prejudices - or at least his political slant, which is decidedly statist for most of the last quarter of the book. He criticized the "Dixie" block of nations for being against social welfare programs, environmental regulation, etc.

But Woodard did surprise at the end with a possible conclusion that I had considered for the future of our country. Our state might return to a loose federation or confederacy like it was under the Articles of Confederation of 1781. The central government would be limited to foreign policy, national defense, and negotiate interstate treaties. I don't know if that level of power would be low enough to satisfy me, or the component "nations" of a "reconstituted" state. But somethings gotta give.

The U.S. has a giant, bloated bureaucracy, giant, bloated redistribution and protectionist programs, a giant military that is deployed throughout the world, and no one wants or should pay for that unnecessary mess. I don't know if a revitalized regionalism expressed through resurgent "nations" would help fix the problem, because that might just transfer power from the federal government to the state governments. Also, the concept does not address personal freedom. But I do have a feeling that a weakened central government would do wonders for business, regional cooperation, and sovereign individualism.

Preliminary Book Review: American Nations

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

Less than half way through. Eye opening. The character of our nation (and the nations of Mexico and Canada) is deceptively simple, if you only look at state lines and stereotypical regions. Of course, this coming from someone that did not know that his dad grew up in Appalachia (I thought southeastern Ohio had character enough).

So far, I identify the most the "Greater Appalachia," which I happen to live in.

I've read - a couple times - The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau. It was a great read, but it was a snapshot of the area set - by default - in the late 1970s. Colin Woodard was right that the historical context of these "nations" is so informative, and that is what makes (so far) American Nations so compelling.