Skip to content

The No-Ruler Government of Dean Striker

May 23, 2011

“When in the Course of human events….”

Are the opening words to the second line of the Declaration of Independence.  Of course the founders then went on to enumerate their grievances against the Crown and their rights to cast off the Crown’s authority.  But for this discussion we need no more than those seven words.

In recent discussions I have been involved in one was short-lived after I was – more or less – removed from the ability to comment on blog posts for being on opposite (I was told) sides of the fence with the blog author/owner.  The blog I am speaking of is No-Ruler.net, owned and authored by Dean Striker.

Mr. Striker is a man on a mission, to bring before people his beliefs on societies that utilize voluntary association in order to exist in peace and harmony.  Mr. Striker makes it very clear that his ideal is society based on there being no force used against any individual or the society itself.  In his beliefs, a society with this primary principle (no force) will prevent the loss of one’s inalienable natural rights.  This gives everyone the ultimate safety of their freedom and liberty from ever being taken away again.

FORCE: If you can agree that Force is inhumane, but believe that some? circumstances are exceptions, reexamine your premises!  A truth consistently remains true; if otherwise it is not a truth.  If Force is inhumane, then it is always inhumane.  So why do humans repeatedly create governments exempted from that morality?  Why are governments allowed to force e.g. by taxes, conscription, regulation of free markets, definition or religions, whatever things one can or cannot own or must own, whom and in what manner Man must or may associate with… the list is long.  What is consistent with truth?

(No-Ruler.net/Essence)

Mr. Striker begins his fight against governments that trample a person’s natural rights by outlining force and it’s use against people.  He, rightly, argues that force should never be allowed wherein it takes from an individual any of their natural rights.  I have no objection to that.  In fact, who would?  He goes on in his description to define some different actions that fall into the force category (“…taxes, conscription, regulation of free markets, definition or religions, whatever things one can or cannot own or must own, whom and in what manner Man must or may associate with…”) as well and calls out using government to legalize these activities in violation of a person’s natural rights.  Again, who could object rationally to this argument?  I certainly won’t.  I would be very pleased to live in a society where such behavior was prohibited.

It is very intriguing that Mr. Striker asks the question, “why do humans repeatedly create government exempted from that morality?”  That is an excellent question.  Yet, the answer is not quite simple.  Mr. Striker hits the answer in his question.  Primarily it is because of people, more specifically because of the nature and behavior of humans that this “mistake” is repeatedly made.  Mr. Striker fails to acknowledge that one characteristic in societies – human behavior.  I’ll go further and state that Mr. Striker purposely blinds himself to the fact.  He does so in order to not have to deal with the problem of how human behaviors impact any type of governments, societies or groupings of humans.

Human behavior comes in many different flavors, but for the purposes of this discussion we will lump all behavior into two categories, “good” and “bad.”  In the ‘good” category I believe we would all agree that the behaviors it would contain would be those that support peaceful existence and harmony among all people.  Behaviors such as love, charity, respect, dignity, honesty, non-violence would be some of those behaviors.  All of which would hold the highest respect and regard for each individual’s life, and that would stand to protect each individual’s right to their liberty and pursuit of happiness.  These very principles are ones Mr. Striker calls for in his voluntary association of people.

Yet, there are also the “bad” behaviors to consider too.  Hate, greed, arrogance, avarice, envy, and anger are some that would fit into the bad category.  These behaviors breed self-indulgent attitudes.  These types of behaviors guide humans to seek power and authority over others, to enforce their will upon others and achieve their personal goals through whatever means necessary.  Here is where force and compulsion come into play against societies.  They do so now, they have in the past and they shall continue to do so in the future.  Yet, this is what Mr. Striker refuses to acknowledge and by doing so insures that any society he dreams of will fail at some point.

Honestly, what Mr. Striker is calling for in his voluntary association is a peaceful anarchy, much as those who “fly the black flag” call for.  A peaceful anarchy would have no “government.”  People would associate in harmony under the guiding principle of no force or aggression being used against anyone.  People would be free to be live their life only regulated by their own moral compass.  If one should trespass against another it would be that person who was “victimized” who would take action to right the wrong against them.  This is truly where Mr. Striker is trying to go with his voluntary association.  His beliefs are powerful and alluring, as well as impracticable and an unrealistic as a working principle for any society.  Why?  Well, human behavior of course!  Mr. Striker refuses to account for human behavior.

Plus, there is a second issue in Mr. Striker’s voluntary association that he is not acknowledging – government.  While Mr. Striker is calling for as peaceful anarchy, what he wants to achieve is nothing more than government.  What?  No, this can’t be you cry.  Ah, but it is.  Mr. Striker speaks to having a constitution even (http://no-ruler.net/blog/enacting-a-constitution/) and calls for it – if implemented to be acknowledged by each individual voluntarily – yet makes no provision what happens if they should decide not to.  This is government.  Whenever there are a set of guiding principles, rules, regulations, agreements, or whatever name you apply, for one to live by (either voluntarily or by force) you have government.  It’s rather confusing – for if Mr. Striker places individual natural rights above all other considerations why would there be any need for any codified constitution?

He even calls for rules of immigration! “If there be ports of entry where immigrants enter, of course their entry could be conditioned upon them signing certain documents.   The same could be a condition of citizenship.  But those many who sneak across the borders will of course never have such “opportunity”.  The gaps grow larger.”  If men are truly free to pursue their lives then there is no need for immigration policies, rules, regulations or laws.  Allow any and all to enter unconditionally, for no one has the right to deny another from entering (or leaving if they choose) any nation.  If they come to do harm then it is upon the victim to defend themselves and seek redress of that harm.  Ergo, Mr. Striker calls for government, under the innocuous sounding name of voluntary association.

In the end Mr. Striker himself makes my case for me.  When he gets discussion or comment contrary to his ideals he exercises his authoritarian power to remove the offender from his “sight.”  He violates his own argued stance against force.  He compels one to conform to his wishes or to be removed from his site, silenced from any questioning, commenting, or dissent.  If I comply I may return I am told.

Likely that will not happen since I know Mr. Striker will not open himself to any realistic debate or discussion of the ability of humans to enact a society that does not contain the behaviors which have perverted governments, not only our current one either.  Mr. Striker ignores these realities of human behavior, never accounting for how they will likely impact his ideals.  Nor does he take even a moment’s thought into dealing with these very problems when it directly affects the society he believes can and will exist among men.

However, unlike Mr. Striker, I will never restrict a person’s freedom and right to speak their beliefs or engage themselves in discussions or debates of ideas.  I won’t because I understand that all opinions have a place in working to determine the final outcome of the future of any society we may be able to build that improves upon the poorly governed one under which we exist today, regularly being forced to participate while our rights, freedoms and liberty are stolen from us more and more.

Advertisements
13 Comments leave one →
  1. gmanfortruth permalink*
    May 23, 2011 5:58 pm

    WE are inviting some true Black Flag waiving folks to hopefully join the discussion. Kent, Black Flag and Dean Striker all have similar ideals, and all are very good people. I hope this gets as interesting as the subject of anarchy is.

    • Mathius permalink
      May 23, 2011 6:11 pm

      I’ve been inclined to pass up a good argument…

      8)

      • May 23, 2011 6:14 pm

        But that’s no fun. Besides, we might even agree to a degree – this time at least. 😉

  2. May 23, 2011 9:24 pm

    The quote from Plato is the capsule. Behavior in a civilization needs to be and HAS to be maintained. Other wise it is deviant behavior. The USA has it behavior defined in the Constitution. Outside of the Constitution is deviant behavior. Black or White?

    If Mr. Striker lives here as I do in The United States of America, he may need to consider moving to a country more closely lined w/his thoughts and ideas..other wise he will be consistent with Behavior an or Deviant Behavior…Political Correctness aside. Defined next paragraph.

    “Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
    minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

    (Especially when the need to sell commercial air time overwhelms any since of reporting)

    The French Liberals or a bit more to the West in Europe actually, may have a place for his (Strikers) ideology to expound…In My Humble Opinion. Or possibly…Sosialistisk Venstreparti. Either decision I believe will be of his own doings, an a minority across the board of Human Rights, Behavior in a Society he dwells upon, lastly but not all inclusive just not right….Not a Winner try again Mr. Striker.

    • gmanfortruth permalink*
      May 23, 2011 11:00 pm

      AS a fellow Vet, I sincerly appreciate your comments. I’m sure you have read most if not all the articles on this site, so you can see and understand the thinking behind it. Dean Strikers ideals are fantastic if they could ever come true. THat is the point of PS’s article, is it possible? AS I don’t disagree with the peaceful anarchist’s at all, I have to be sold that it can work. No such salesmanship, other than it’s morally a great plan, which I agree with. I think it’s time to think outside the box, away from what is currently popular in many circles. For that I have a plan, which will be put forward in a future article, and it’s legal!

      Thanks for your continued participation! 🙂 Peace !

      • May 24, 2011 6:37 pm

        I understand the idea of a no leader community. I will have to think about it for a very long time to find for myself the pitfalls. It would be a Utopian idea. I with draw the conclusion of my reply. But agree the idea remains a bit unworkable.

    • May 24, 2011 9:17 am

      Dean Striker espouses a philosophy – fair enough. He is not the only one who believes in his, there are others and they are excellent at explaining their views. I recognize that there are many different philosophies for governments instituted by societies. All we have to do is look at the history of civilization to learn about most of them.

      Where Dean Striker fails is in his refusal to acknowledge human behavior’s influence in his ideas of future voluntary associations. No groupings of humanity will maintain a static ideal, it will change as time passes and that change is the result of the behaviors influencing the society it is a part of.

      Our Republic is no different. The Founders believed they had a decent, though flawed, starting point for government in America. Over time the ideas of humans came into play and their behaviors brought changes – changes that have continued throughout the course of the history of our nation.

      In the end I must be realistic in my thinking as to the potential future of government in the United States. I recognize that no matter what form that takes it will develop and change as human behaviors influence the society that government is suppose to guide. Therefore, if we want to maximize the freedoms and liberties of the individuals in that society we must firmly restrict the ability of government to be expanded broader over the lives of the citizenry. It must be restricted and made very difficult for those changes to occur. maybe, in that way humans will learn the lessons needed and gain the ability to live amongst each other without the need for government – thereby becoming a peaceful anarchy.

      Who knows, anything is possible. His just isn’t at this time and point (nor in the near forseeable future) in human civilization.

  3. Dread Pirate Mathius permalink
    May 23, 2011 10:03 pm

    Y’AAARRGHH!

    That’s all for now. I’ll post more tomorrow once I’ve actually read the article.

    Good night and good luck.

    • May 24, 2011 9:21 am

      Ahoy Dread Pirate and welcome! Drop anchor and partake of the bounty of our little paradise port!

      Grog is on the house (Gman’s buying! 😉 ).

  4. May 24, 2011 7:45 am

    good morning, Gman. First time here. Thought I would pop over and see what is going on. Lordy, if you let DPM in you are not very discriminating, are you? HAve a great day, my friend.

    • May 24, 2011 9:23 am

      Ah Colonel, welcome to the asylum. 🙂

      It’s a fine day when you drop in sir. As for DPM, we can always call upon the raptors of your defense team should the pirate get too far out of hand.

  5. Mathius permalink
    May 24, 2011 11:21 am

    As the Joker said: And… here… we… go.

    If you can agree that Force is inhumane I don’t believe this. At least not inherently so. What about force in self-defense? Force against the willing (ie, boxing)? Force for good (pushing someone out of the way of a oncoming car)? Etc, etc? I would add, though I know you wouldn’t, force in service of that ever-elusive Greater Good.

    force should never be allowed wherein it takes from an individual any of their natural rights. I have no objection to that. In fact, who would? I would. I would argue that natural rights are counterbalanced against societal obligations. This, of course, is the beating heart of the liberal stance. While you do have rights, there is a certain amount of noblesse oblige which justifies violations of right such as taxation. There is also a certain amount of safety and security and stability (and general welfare). You quote the Declaration of Independence, but you neglect the Preamble of the Constitution:

    to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare […]

    More to come as time permits.. busy with work and SUFA today.. trying to juggle everything.

    • May 24, 2011 11:36 am

      Mathius, in his philosophy (and BF’s, Kent’s) self-defense, defense of others etc is not force. Boxing (I think) they would not consider force as two individuals agree to enter a ring and duke it out in a contest of skill – the agree part being the key. I also don’t think saving someone from injury by pushing them would be considered force either.

      Next, I used the DOI to show nothing more than government is influenced by human events – ergo human behavior.

      I do not subscribe to the preamble of the Constitution as being anything more that a statement of what the framers goals were in construction of the rest (the binding aspects) of the Constitution. The preamble is not binding (no Buck, it isn’t regardless of what some court may have decided), therefore there is no societal right to common defense, general welfare etc in the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: