e isn't one. The Republican party has ABSOLUTELY NO underlying principles. Not a one. (To be fair, I'm speaking now of thepoliticians rather than the voters, some of whom actually have foundational beliefs.)

In fact, there are very few political positions that are based upon actual principles. Two, to be exact:

1) Pure collectivism, whether under the banner of socialism, communism, fascism, or the euphemism "democracy," has an underlying principle: EVERYTHING should be the property of the collective (which ends up meaning the government), and the collective has the right to forcibly control the behavior of all individuals. Okay, so it happens to be an insane, horribly destructive principle, but at least it's a principle.

2) Libertarianism is based on the idea that the only proper use of force, whether by "government" or anyone else, is to defend against force or fraud committed by others.

So what is the underlying principle of the Republican party? Do they, for example, believe that you have a right to keep what you earn? Of course not. When they talk about "tax cuts," there is NO principle involved. They are NOT saying that what you earn belongs to you. They are saying that, as your masters, they would choose to LET you keep a little bit more than other politicians might. In other words, they are running on the concept of "I'm a nicer master than that other guy." And they pat themselves on the back for it.

The politicians of both parties believe, quite obviously, that it is completely at THEIR discretion how much of your earnings they will ALLOW you to keep. That is what "taxation" is: THEY decide how much they get, and how much you get. You have no say in the matter. (If you think your "vote" counts as having a say in the matter, read on.) In principle, there is NO difference.

People are really bad at being objective: seeing a situation without bias. We see things based on what we already know, and what we're accustomed to. And politicians make the most of that fact. How hilarious is it that the Republican party still wears the label of "limited government," when it advocates that around HALF of what everyone earns be taken by force by the government? It's only because someone else is suggesting a slightly higher level of wealth confiscation that by comparison the Republican party can pretend to be pro-freedom. (The fact that that ploy works is embarrassing.)

How can something be called a political philosophy if it doesn't have an ideal? How do you know what direction to go if you don't have an ultimate goal you're aiming at? "I don't know where I'm going, but I'm going the right way." Huh? Here is what an actual principle looks like: I am against carjacking. I don't want ANY of it. I don't want to reduce it by 3%. I don't want to regulate it. I don't want it inflicted only on "the rich." I don't want to put a cap on it. I don't want to slowly phase it out (or in). I don't want carjacking "reform." I don't want more efficient carjacking, or a more customer-friendly carjacking. I want it STOPPED, completely. Because, in PRINCIPLE, it is wrong.

Most people now acknowledge that voting consists of choosing the lesser of two evils. So whose brilliant idea was it to give us two EVILS to choose from? If everyone decides what SHOULD be from the starting point of what IS, instead of having fundamental beliefs and basic principles, you're just redecorating a poop cake. Such worthless, superficial discourse is exactly what those in power want you to think constitutes "reasonable" discussion. You can discuss WHICH thief's hand to have in your pocket, or WHICH jackboot to have on your throat, but don't you dare suggest that NO ONE should be doing that.

Allow me to quote myself:

These days the most popular illusion of "peasant power" is the voting booth. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." [Lysander Spooner]

No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and oppressed by "elected" tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that another "election" is their only civilized recourse to any government-imposed injustice they see.

"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." [F. A. Hayek]

People would think it insane to have an election to choose a carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference

between that and choosing a "ruler" comes from the now deeply ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential to society (a delusion you [speaking to the aspiring tyrant here] should reinforce constantly). The question must always be WHICH person or group of people should have the power to rule everyone else; the question must never be WHETHER anyone should have such power.

"We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." [Helen Keller]

If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them, their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender their freedom to. America gives a fine example, showing that a people who violently resisted a relatively low level of oppression from King George III would later fail to resist a dramatically higher level of intrusion, control, extortion and general oppression imposed by "elected" tyrants.

The above is from my recently released book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" www.tyrantbook.com , which is just what it sounds like: a how-to manual for aspiring tyrants. (I sure hope the common folk don't get their hands on it, or the methods described in the book might not work anymore.)

So the point here is not really to bash a particular party (though that's always fun), but to introduce the concept of PRINCIPLES, something nowhere to be found in "normal" political debates. And I don't mean vague, politician-rhetoric non-principles like "I'm for lower taxes." Lower than what? How low? Fifty percent? One percent? Zero percent? Is there a PRINCIPLE involved, or are you just playing with window-dressing?

The reason I call this the "anti-political" list is because it will NOT be about tinkering with the symptoms of our twisted, insane system. We will be digging underneath all of it, to see what is at the heart of ALL "acceptable" political discussion. And then we will consider some UNacceptable ideas.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose

www.larkenrose.com