page 19

And As For Governments

Happened to attend a tome what issueless debate today (about whether one should or shouldn't have confidence in the Government). Both sides seemed to miss the point. In their bumblings and counter-attacks they gave me serious misgivings as to whether one should have confidence in Government per se.

After all, government by definition is the rule — or mis-rule — of one group of individuals over another i.e. suppression of the populus.

This is not necessary. Let me postulate the concept of a nihilistic u'opia, where in men live in harmony; and coercion and restraint are nonexistent. This state of being is not only far more desirable than the rule of law, but is also feasibile in fact inevitable.

Counter arguments to this type of political philosophy would come under two headings. Both can be discounted, Firstly, that it is hope lessly idealistic. So was Karl Marx condemned. Secondly, that human nature being what it is, mankind will always need laws and policing. This is the kind of argument used by the Christians against Darwin, and is tangible bullshit. I put it to you that not only have our minds, our morals and our bodies evolved, but so has government. Compare, for instance 18th Century justice with todays. Some evolution, at least.

Government by becoming less arbitary, is evolving itself out of justice. I submit, therefore, that persons attempting to stem the tide of evolution are not only being futile and reactionary, but by putting their ideas into action are endangering the progress of humanity.

I further submit, that in time when progressive leadership is vital in the dismantling of what is fast becoming an anachronism, such conservative reactionaries — whether they be fascist, spartacist or Trot — who still believe in the efficiency of government should be sweetly and harmoniously liquidated.

Yours divisively, A. Narky