If you'd rather place an order by talking to one of our cheerful order desk clerks, please call 1-888-232-4444 (USA and Canada only) or 250-383-6864. From Europe, ring our UK order desk clerk at local rate number 0845 230 9601 (UK only) or 44 (0)1865 722 113.

There's No Government Like NO Government: the nonvoter's manifesto

by Jackney Sneeb

251 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #02-0386; ISBN 1-55369-573-9; US$23.00, C$27.00, EUR19.00, £13.50

A diabolical, irreverent, and even arrogant indictment of the mass delusion, "democracy," and the blind faith in any other form of "government."

Read more!

about the book      about the author      sample excerpts      catalogue info

About the Book There's No Government Like No Government celebrates the belief in the human spirit unmolested by state-worship. It extols the value of individual judgment, based on perceptions, experience, and reason, and in the process derisively mocks the mindless blind faith in the inherent righteousness of the law. It excoriates the belief that politicians ought to have, or even could have, the ability to alter morality simply by scribbling some words on a piece of paper. It offers a systematic approach to debunking the myth of the state using a logical analysis of the concept of "government," in tandem with extracts of debates between the defenders of liberty and various authoritarians. The sheep themselves reveal the bogus nature of the supposed authority of all rulers, be they elected democratically or chosen otherwise, in their downright insane descriptions of "government." Variously described as "General Motors," or "a group of people we elect to guarantee our rights," or the agency that "doesn't have to be morally correct - that's why it is government," the insane belief deserves to be smashed, and this book is dedicated to doing exactly that. Keep it on your coffee table, in plain sight for all the state-worshipping control freaks to see, to be used as your answer when asked, "Who did you vote for?"

---

About the Author Jackney Sneeb is the pen name of William R. Malloy. Bill Malloy is a graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Bachelor of Professional Aeronautics, 1980), University of Southern California (Master of Science in Systems Management, 1987), and Troy State University, Dothan (Master of Science in Counseling and Psychology, 1996). He served in the United States Army as a clerk, infantryman, and attack helicopter pilot and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for twenty years' service, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and Master Army Aviator wings. He lives in Southern California and has a website at http://NoGov4me.net and email address at anarchisregnet@aol.com.

---

Sample Excerpts

From page 30

Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-

A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.

Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in 'government,' thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A.' The problem is that George already has right ŒA* -- the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B'- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B,' he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.

Bob might be able to delegate 'A,' the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A,' while actually attempting to delegate right 'B,' he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A,' voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.

Excerpt from page 103

This brings up a particularly anti-human result of the statist's philosophy. Do the murderers and rapists believe in an obligation to obey the "law"? Obviously not, since they disobey it. They only fear the consequences of getting caught. So only the generally good (albeit deluded) people really care if something is "law." And since the good people would already support justified defensive force, the only thing the "law" changes is that otherwise good people then also start to support unjust force. I sometimes ask, "When the law is wrong, what should happen to those who disobey it?" The authoritarian tries to avoid answering, at first. He will say something irrelevant about writing to congress and changing the law (as if individual citizens could actually change what congress commands them to do. If the authoritarian respects the law so much, and congress' right to create it, why would he disagree with it enough to want to change it in the first place?). When pressed, he will say the absurd thing, out of his conditioned belief in the inherent righteousness of the law. He will say, "They should suffer the consequences." That is, they should be put in jail. Instead of pointing out how idiotic that is, I follow up with, "And what should happen to those who enforce such a wrong law?" They almost always say, "Nothing."

So, from the authoritarian's conditioned response we see in his philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free- which is why that so often happens in politics.

---

Catalogue Information

---