i toed the line, and the line won ...

there is certainly a delicate balance in the nature of government, at least one that i have never seemed to feel at ease with. and through this, i am always led back to my anarchism rather than a want to embrace socialism, though at the same time i am more at ease with the liberals than my fellow conservatives.

really, my problem with conservatives is the tax issue -- and it's really a fundamental issue. by virtue of my anarchistic roots, i fully believe that government should be as small as possible. in fact, i would suggest that any level of government is going to lead to a consistent balance in the favor of corruption over productivity (using some socratic logic, i call that balance 60/40 or closer).

but the motive has to be, honestly, less government and less that the corrupt can use to get their feet in the door of power in the united states. being that the united states is the most powerful nation in the world, it is essential that no one political aim should have power. this, though, is not the problem now. the problem now is an unholy alliance between warring factions. i do not believe that george bush and donald rumsfeld are from the same school of thought.

i am concerned that when conservatives have money, motives quickly evolve. one could, and should, argue that to have more is to fear your government more. certainly i have nothing, and fear my government not at all -- despite my distrust in the system at large. so in one sense, that argument would hold water. and to that extent, i do not doubt that the begotten child of conservative values and wealth has some conservativism left in it.

i am saying that i believe that mainstream conservatives would prefer to pay less taxes, and have the government protect their increased value to an increased degree. that would be getting your pussy and eating it too, and i can't help but want to salt that game.

ideally, we would want a system that allowed for power to center around the more naturally powerful individuals, and the residual powers be balanced evenly throughout society. in that, two weaker individuals would hold equal weight, and a more powerful individual would have both more responsibilities and a natural authority over them.

a natural authority is distinguished from other authorities in that it is not dictated by writ but rather assumed via common respect. in that, i am saying that to have a true authority, your jurisdiction must only encompass those who fully endorse the authority.

a natural power, therefore, is an authority that encompasses those who do not endorse it.

there are two significant reasons that i can think of for power to be centered around the naturally powerful ones, whom also receive the natural authority. the first of these reasons is in the mentality of those who possess natural power.

there is a common mentality among weaker individuals to try and gain power via intimidation. you see this most common in a smaller dog -- thus labeling it the "small dog" mentality -- in how it relates to the other mammals ... whom it fears. small dogs act in haste, with straw defenses, and without the means to enforce.

those who have had natural power all their lives are more comfortable with authority. they are far less likely to use it with the same tendencies as the small dogs.

the second reason is that if one wishes to challenge authority, the authority should have the natural power to enforce itself over the challengers. this is because the primary agreement between the governed and the government is physical protection.

that leads to the dilemma. if you first enter into this governing agreement, and you know full well that you will have a nearly 60/40 balance of corruption and productivity, then don't you have to endorse more authority, leading to more productivity, and causing more corruption until you have a payout in productivity that makes the corruption tolerable. the logic being that 6 dominating 4 is bad, 60 dominating 40 is less bad, and 60 million dominating 40 million is not so bad. the dilemma is an avoid/approach. approach ideal productivity and avoid an intolerable level of corruption.

that's a really complicated way of saying that if you give into the evil that is government, then shouldn't you get the most out of it as is practical? so ultimately, i would prefer no government, but any government should not be content until it has pleased all who endorse its authority.

i am not sure what i think of this, i am going to have to read over it tomorrow.