Down With Hamas AND Israel AND All States; LIke Braveheart I Cry "Freedom!"

I go out on a limb here and note what I am more and more observing is the true root of the majority of this world's violence. Feel free to comment, but I'm feeling pretty good about my conclusions, so be prepared to get ripped upon in my responses...

I am annoyed by the constant ridicule of Hamas for not confronting the Israeli military directly.

Seriously, the a-holes in Hamas are not insane. They know that, in a pitched battle, Israeli forces (also a-holes) will kick the tar out of them. Hamas's only option--in terms of accomplishing its ends--is to hit and run to places where Israel doesn't dare to strike with the force of which it is fully capable.

Let the record show that I support neither Israel nor Hamas--nor the virus of nationalism that inevitably leads to such blood feuds.

Both sides have their arguments. However, both sides have acted in ways so atrocious as to invalidate both of their arguments, morally speaking at least.

It does not have to be that Israel is right and Hamas is wrong, or Israel is wrong and Hamas is right. It can be that both Israel and Hamas are wrong, but they cannot both be right--at least not logically (and if you cannot think logically, then please click on the X in the upper-right corner of your web browser).

When you look at how and why both sides are wrong, the issue always comes to that of a powerful state that can control the lives of those within its borders: Israel wants a Jewish state; Hamas wants a Muslim state.

The real evil isn't the nation of Israel or the nation of Palestine. The real evil is the idea of the nation-state of Israel or the nation-state of Palestine. Without devotion to nationhood, people would cooperate freely in order to get what they want and need. The very idea of nationhood alone has led to countless wars, all of which result in diminishing the prosperity of both sides of the conflict.

Only governments or those hoping to create governments wage war. Left alone, it is in the interests of people to cooperate/trade voluntarily. Therefore, a world without governments is a world without wars.

This is not to say that a world without governments is a perfect world. It's to say that governments make the world worse than it needs to be. Sure, individuals hurt, rob, and shoot each other; and people may die by the hundreds, even thousands under such circumstances

Without governments, the amount of violence would decisively decrease--at least in the United States, where much violence is associated with "The Drug War," which would cease to be waged were there no government. Again, there would still be violence, but it would be less violence.

Consider that in human history, the only way that the number of dead due to violence has ever reached the millions per year is when governments are involved.

For generations, governments have promised to eradicate all forms of evil. They have failed to do so in every respect, but people still turn to governments for solutions.

Of course, that means that people are pretty stupid, which means that democracy--supposedly the safest of all governments--is stupid as well (i.e. a government elected by stupid people must be stupid).

Of all the forms of government tried in the past, say several thousand years, which have really worked? The answer, of course, is none. In the end, all governments manage to tyrannize their subjects.

The trend seems constantly toward more government. This is an inane trend--if you truly wish the best for people, for more government equals less freedom.

For once, why don't we try very little, or even, dare I say, no government.

Hey, argue with Thomas Jefferson before you argue with me. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence who said, "The government that governs least governs best."

Henry David Thoreau perfected Jefferson's sentiment with "The government that governs least governs not at all."