Monthly Archives: March 2017

How Exactly Does Existence Imply a Plurality of Itself?: More Problems with Objectivism

Objectivism asserts a reality distinct from the observer…the observer being, of course, “he who observes”.  Now, understand that when we speak of observation we necessarily imply cognition; and I prefer this term to “consciousness”, since “consciousness” has become rationally opaque and is used by objectivism and other philosophies as a synonym for what is fundamentally subjective. Also, “cognition” is less cumbersome, anyway.  It merely means an observer conceptualizing the distinction between himself and what he observes.  Which is the foundation of language, and therefore gets to the very heart and root of real truth.

But cognition is not simply a biological or physiological process…so we need to be careful here.  It CAN BE a rational synonym for “consciousness”, I submit, because it implies a necessary awareness of the distinction between one’s Self, as the Observer (the frame of reference for knowledge), and that which is observed.  In other words, cognition does not necessarily imply the neurological, but rather the active and efficacious and relevancy-giving conscious awareness of the neurological (so to speak…meaning, awareness that “neurological” is a thing in the first place…a truth which can be applied to a purpose specifically and necessarily determined by the observer).

So objectivism assert this distinction between “objective reality” and the observer…by which it means a distinction between “objective reality” and cognition.  Now, this distinction is alone enough to discredit objectivism as any kind of rational school of thought, since absent the observer’s ability to define this reality from his own existential frame of reference via cognition, he cannot claim that it exists at all…as objectively real or otherwise. In which case you cannot make any philosophical claims about it whatsoever.  I mean, if “objective reality” is objectively real, and the observer’s position in it is not mutually exclusive of it, then the observer must also be objectively real.  Which means that the tool by which he interprets and defines it, that is, his cognition–his own conscious and singular frame of reference–must also be objectively real.  So…how can one’s consciousness/cognition be divorced from objective reality?

It can’t.

So…there is no “objective reality” outside of consciousness.  Which means that once you are no longer existentially conscious (alive), then you have no frame of reference for objective reality, which means it has no relevancy to you, which means it has no truth to you, where “you” is an absolute context, which means that it cannot be said to exist.  It cannot be said to be anything. Which means that beyond your consciousness you cannot claim a reality which continues, outside of you.

As soon as you attempt to divorce consciousness/cognition from objective reality, you’re done.  You’ve created a contradiction which collapses the whole philosophy.

Nevertheless, let’s continue, because there is another problem–albeit closely related–with objectivism which bears explication.

There can be no distinction between reality and the observer because the observer has no frame of reference for such a reality; and this  because he has no frame of reference for for anything outside of that by which he knows (and therefore can claim) anything–his absolute SELF.  And himSELF, is “he who observes”.

Because he cannot step outside of his own observation, he cannot claim that there is anything outside of that observation.  Whatever is outside of his powers of observation cannot be defined, and therefore he cannot claim that they exist outside of himself.  For “himself” and his observation are entirely corollary.  There is no reality outside himself because it is only by himself, and absolutely so, as the observer that he can make any truth claim, of which “reality” is perhaps preeminent.  It is like claiming that I know what it’s like to be a cup of coffee…that is, because I can “be” a cup of coffee outside of myself, I can claim that “here is coffee”, and “there is me”, from TWO completely distinct frames of reference.  But this is impossible since my SELF as the observer is utterly singular.  The cup of coffee “outside” of me only exists as such because I OBSERVE it and define it and give it truth as a function of ME–my absolute frame of reference as the (conscious/cognitive) observer. Without me, there is no frame of reference for that cup of coffee; in which case, I have no definition for coffee that is “real”, “outside of me”.  That is, since I am not a cup of coffee, I can only ever define a cup of coffee as it pertains, absolutely and categorically, to me from my absolute frame of reference as the observer. The distinction, then, between “me” and “cup of coffee”, is entirely a function of MY singular ability to conceptualize the distinction.  Without that ability, that is, without me, as utterly and absolutely myself, consciously/cognitively, there is no distinction.  And therefore, there is no “reality’ outside of me.  A cup of coffee entirely and “objectively” outside of me–outside of my SELF–is entirely and infinitely irrelevant.  And one cannot claim the existence of that which is infinitely irrelevant. And in this way, apprehending a “reality” for me–that is, a reality that I can observe and thus claim from the place of me, yet not from me, but outside of me–is a violation of both my identity and the identity of “reality”.  To claim a reality outside of me that I can somehow observe and know and yet exists entirely and absolutely and completely independent of me is not to affirm reality, but to destroy it.  It is to dismantle cognition as the means of ascertaining truth, because it is to say that human cognition has nothing fundamentally to do with reality.  But since cognition is, in fact, the means, and only means, by which man can know anything, to dismantle it is to subordinate humanity to an entirely unknowable “reality”.  And if that isn’t a recipe for tyranny, then I don’t know what is.  And this is precisely why in the 60 years or so since Objectivism became the chef d’oeuvre of “rationalists” despotism has done nothing but advance…and mightily so.

*

While Objectivists speak of absolute distinction between the observer and reality, they also claim that Objectivism fully and absolutely integrates the observer, via the metaphysical primary of Existence, into that reality.  This is a problem.  How can you step outside of that which is, at root, you–existence–in order to observe you?  That is, if you are are fully and absolutely a function of the absolute and infinite metaphysical primary, how can you make the distinction between “you” and “reality” by appealing to an absolute which is both?

In order to answer this contradiction, some objectivists, or respecters of Objectivism, will assert the concept of “emergent properties”. And this is the idea that something in whole becomes greater in some sense than the sum of its parts.  This, in fact, cannot be literally true. That is, it is only ever subjectively true, never objectively so. Abstractly…subjectively, yes.  A thing can have more value than its mere material properties would suggest; but notice that this requires a conscious observer to apply that thing to his particular frame of reference of Self. In terms of objective truth, it is impossible to claim that a thing is anything more than that of which it is comprised at root.  That is, there is no such thing as some “property” “emerging” beyond the absolute irreducible ontic essence of something. Like, if we claim that all things, including human beings, are at root a function of immutable physical laws, or absolute fundamental particles interacting according to these absolutely immutable physical laws (which is a contradiction…but that’s a topic for later), and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness/cognition–that is, has nothing to do with the fact that man apprehends and defines ALL of what he perceives as real via his awareness of Self (his ability to conceptualize relative distinctions between his Self, and what is NOT Self)–then we cannot claim that consciousness is somehow an “emergent property” and therefore doesn’t contradict the absolute and irreducible source of man and all things, which is utterly and absolutely unconscious.  This is a fallacy, and cannot be taken seriously.

The idea of “emergent properties”, in other words, is the irrational assertion that you get consciousness from what is absolutely unconscious; that you get free will from irrelevant determinism (biological, physical, natural, mathematical); that you get Self–in the sense of a singular “You”, from NOT You; an observational and existential frame of reference of “I” from NOT I; that what is infinite, Existence–which according to Objectivism is the irreducible, infinite metaphysical primary–spawns a plurality of finite objects; that an infinite existence somehow produces a plurality of itself without contradicting itself.

And it is from this claim–that existence as the metaphysical primary somehow spawns a plurality of itself…where things can actually exist utterly distinct from one another and allow for the observer to perceive a “reality” outside himself (outside his cognition)–that we get the common obectivist refrain of “existence exists”.

But “existence exists” is simply saying that existence has existence, which is a tautological assertion, and therefore a logical failure.  You see, the rational metaphysical argument is not that the primary simply implies itself, but that it implies someONE–some observer; some reference–who is able to claim that it is, in fact, the metaphysical primary in the first place; that it is, in fact, TRUE. That it holds REAL relevance; REAL efficacy.  That it implies something in a practical sense beyond itself, which can see it, and know it, but doesn’t contradict it as the absolute and irreducible primary.  Objectivism fails at this, and therefore ultimately fails entirely…as does any other philosophy which fails to meet the requirement for a rationally consistent metaphysical primary.

Now, having said that, reconciling this inherent metaphysical paradox is really hard.  So hard, in fact, that I’m not sure of any primary outside of my own (Ability) which successfully does this.  Here’s why it’s so challenging:

Let’s look at “existence exists” again.  What is absolutely itself, and irreducibly, or infinitely so, cannot possess properties of itself, because those “properties” are necessarily also infinite.  And as such they are undefinable…other than to say that the properties of existence are existence itself, which as I have explained is a logical failure.

Further, saying that existence exists is merely saying that existence is itself, which is a meaningless claim unless “itself” can be defined.  But if “itself” is infinite then it cannot be valued…for if there is no limitation to itself, then it cannot be anywhere, and thus it cannot be anything.  Another way to put it is: that which is everything and everywhere cannot be anything or anywhere.  That which is all is itself nothing.

But the rational metaphysical primary must certainly be absolute, and thus infinite, which according to my explication above is a contradiction that seems beyond resolution, making any metaphysical primary impossible.  Now, I submit that this is not actually the case–that it is a true paradox, and not a contradiction, and therefore has a resolution.  But the question here is: Does “existence” as a primary resolve it?

The answer is no.  Because “existence” doesn’t imply anything beyond itself, and this is proven by the epigram which oft accompanies it: “existence exists”.  This simply means that existence implies existence.  It begins and ends with itself.  The “plurality” of itself, from which the observer ostensibly arises, ironically doesn’t actually exist! The observer cannot be made rationally distinct from “existence” if “existence” is the metaphysical primary…a distinction which is utterly necessary if he is to actually observe anything.  You see, it’s not about whether or not the observer exits, but whether or not the observer is able to define existence.  That is, it’s not about whether or not the observer IS at root the metaphysical primary, but whether the primary actually implies–demands/necessitates–that there BE an observer…that he occupy a place from which he can SEE it, as distinct from himself, and know it, and define it, and therefore make it relevant; make it actually the TRUE metaphysical primary.

But, again, “existence” doesn’t imply anything beyond itself, and therefore the observer cannot actually observe it (nor anything else, since all “things” are equally infinite “existence), and so he cannot define it.  Therefore, as soon as an objectivist makes any truth claim, let alone the claim that “existence” is the metaphysical primary, they have dismantled the primary and thus their entire philosophy. There is nothing outside of existence, not even the objectivist. Because all things have equal absolute existence, there is no such thing as “all things”.  There is just infinite existence, which is, in fact, nothing at all. Because: that which is all, is actually nothing.

In summary, there is a dreadfully complicated paradox here that for all of its beauty and Rand’s inarguable genius Objectivism doesn’t answer.  Because to answer it is to reject its metaphysical primary, which is a rejection of itself.  The only root objective thing at all anywhere is the metaphysical primary; and Objectivism’s primary, existence, spawns nothing but subjectivism by affirming and necessitating that the observer/reality paradox is infinitely paradoxical.  And this is how a paradox becomes a contradiction.  Because a paradox which can have no resolution is no longer a paradox, it is an impossibility…a contradiction in terms.  And contradiction is the mother of subjectivity. Because contradiction as infinite foundational “truth” spawns infinite truths. Which is simply infinite contradiction.

All of this makes Objectivism considerably ironic.  An “objective” metaphysic which demands utterly subjective epistemology, purpose, ethics, and politics is hardly objective, let alone a rational basis for the argumentation of objective reality.

END

Advertisements

Mandatory Voting: To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is not a choice (Finale)

Let’s talk about mandatory voting laws, as seen in some countries. Australia comes to mind off the bat. I have read the Wikipedia article on compulsory voting, and I can assure you that none of the arguments presented here in this article were addressed in that one.  In other words, unsurprisingly, there was no rational consistency to the “against” arguments in the Wikipedia article.  This is because once you concede the legitimacy of Government–that is, Force–to command behavior to subjective social (politics and ethics) outcomes, there IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST GOVERNMENT FORCE.  Incidentally, this is why it makes sense to avoid almost all political discussions these days.  Because, you see, the real debate is not about which political ideology should become law–that is, should be thrust upon the masses at gunpoint, which is what law is, because the Law NEEDS violent men to enforce it or it is irrelevant–but about whether or not anyone has a right to use violence to compel the behavior of another.  And if all sides start the argument from the place of “yes”, then the differences in political opinions concerning how to best wield the violence necessary to compel political ideologies which MUST use it, under the false moral auspices of “Law” in order to sell it as something other than rank violence in service to entirely subjective standards, become purely semantic.  Philosophically, there is no actual difference.  Which means that ALL ideas which incorporate Government necessarily lead to the same place: tyranny.

Anyway, back to mandatory voting:

*

A forced choice is not a choice; and FORCED compliance to the outcome of a choice is overt evidence of the illegitimacy of such a “choice”.  (Of course, when I say “forced compliance to the outcome”, I mean as opposed to the necessary natural experience of an effect.  Like, if you choose vanilla ice cream for dessert you are going to taste vanilla ice cream.  This isn’t force, this is consequence…a free and willful consequence of a free choice.)

This false choice (forced choice) is, in fact, and ironically, an outright denial and rejection of man’s ability to choose, which is a rejection of his very agency.  And thus it is a rejection of his ability, qua himself, to be aware of anything–to know anything–at all. And thus, it denies that he is capable of making a choice in the first place. Here’s why:

The scenario is this: I must choose A or B (or A or B or C or D…the number of “options” is irrelevant).  But the coercive nature of the choice functionally eradicates the difference.  Because of FORCE, A = B.  Or, said another way, A = B via FORCE.  If I am forced into A or B, then choice is not the thing defining the relationship. Real choice, predicated upon my will, which proceeds from the understanding that I (Self), being the conscious agent, form the ethical and epistemological (good and true) reference for the purpose and relevancy of the choice, is not what defines the distinction–the relationship–between A and B and myself.  Rather, FORCE from an outside agent or institution of Authority (legal violence…which is not synonymous with moral violence) is that which defines the relationship.  My choice thus is irrelevant.  For by the nature of coercion I am forced upon A or B, and A or B is forced upon me.  In other words, I am forced to accept A, OR I am forced to accept B.  And this means that both A and B equally represent my submission to the Authority…which is merely submission to violence.  (Who has supreme authority? The guy with the biggest gun.) Thus, they both equally cease to be an option, and therefore I do not choose between them in any legitimate sense of the word. They have both become merely symbols of my submission…my sacrifice.  They are equal manifestations, distinction-less, of my utter enslavement to coercive authority.  Whatever other distinctions there may be between A and B are irrelevant.  They both equally represent Authority.  And Authority is FORCE, and FORCE nullifies volition, and this nullifies choice.

A and B cease to become actual options because they cease to become functionally distinct.  They represent a monolith of sorts; a singular thing to which I am bound by FORCE, not by choice.  A = B precisely because I cannot actually choose them, because I do not define the relationship.  That I must accept A means, as far as I as an individual am concerned, the exact same thing as I must accept B, and vice versa.  The fact that I may not act freely of my own will on my own behalf but am forced by threats of violence into the “choice” makes “choice”, itself, at the very conceptual level, compulsory.  And “compulsory choice” is a contradiction in terms which necessarily denies my agency. That I must be forced to consider A or B demands the assumption that I do not, in and of myself, possess the ability to properly apprehend their value, and thus their meaning, in the first place.  And this means that I cannot possibly know the difference.

*

Legitimate and foundational choice is the necessary and rational right of the individual to decide (choose) how he wants to relate to ONE specific thing at any given single moment.  This means that choice is never really, at root, between A or B, but between A and NOT A, or B and NOT B; and by this I mean that A is not the same thing (does not equal) as NOT B, and B is not the same thing as NOT A.  The rejection of A does not necessarily mean the acceptance of B…for B is not A’s “negative corollary”, or vice versa.  The non-acceptance/application of A is not B; and the non-acceptance/application of B is not A, because A and B are entirely distinct things.  The absence of one does not equal the presence of the other.  Simply because A might or may be selected for a particular purpose does not make B the reciprocal of A.  That is, the absence of A does not fundamentally, logically, or ontologically equal the presence of B.  And this is the root of real choice, because real choice does not synthesize the two.  It means the actual, efficacious, distinction between A and B, as opposed to a purely illusory or semantic one.  If I am presented with a choice between coffee and tea, and I decline the tea, it doesn’t mean that I must have the coffee. I might have the coffee, but the declining of the tea is not, itself, the acceptance of coffee.  Because the real decision I am making is not whether I will have coffee or tea, but whether I will have coffee or not have coffee; and whether I will have tea or not have tea.  Tea is absolutely distinct from coffee, and coffee is absolutely distinct from tea, and both are absolutely distinct from me. Their identities are not bound to each other, nor to me.  And I, as the moral and intellectual agent, whose Self represents the reference for the meaning and purpose of them, MUST make the CHOICE (and dictate the terms by which the choice is made based on what I WANT and what I THINK) to apply each one, as distinct from the other, to me, separately.  And I am not obligated to either, separately.  But as soon as we wreck the distinction…as soon as we make the reciprocal of A, B, or vice versa, by FORCING “choice”, then we nullify choice.  And thus, as soon as we use FORCE to remove the rational distinction between objects, or leaders, we remove the rational distinction between those objects or leaders and the individual.  We are merely using FORCE to utterly integrate the individual into the will of the Authority, periodThere is no choice for an individual who’s choices are demanded, and determined for him by the Authority. There is only the sacrifice of man to this new “reality”, where A IS B and B IS A, because the “choice” of one over the other represents no rational difference to the individual, but merely his absolute obligation, manifest by violence, to the will of the Authority.

To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is NOT a choice (part 4)

An Authority, like the Government–the State–by its very definition exists to compel, absent argument or reason, obedience. And it is so important to understand this. For if a reason was required in order for the State to exercise its power to force compliance, then its very nature–its very existence–would be contradicted.  And I don’t mean a “reason”, like “do it because I said so”, or “because it’s in God’s Word” (which is a make-believe thing), or “because I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t”.  I mean an actual reason; an explanation that appeals to rational consistency (i.e. Truth) in order to convince someone of something because it is in their own interest, both practical and existential (which are corollary), to agree with it and to choose it.

And “in one’s own interest” is the only rational reason one can be convinced of anything–for no one has a frame of reference “outside” themselves, and thus, they have no frame of reference for anything but their own interest. So from this you can see just why the State simply cannot give a reason for the exercising of its power to compel.  Because “power to compel” and “the interest of one’s (the Individual’s) self” are mutually exclusive.

Authority is not an option; it’s not a suggestion; it’s not a guideline.  It’s force, period.  And force is violence, period.  And using violence to compel a person to act is absolutely contradictory to that person’s self-interest, period.  Always.

Now, naturally when I say “always” I am not referring to the innocent defending themselves from people who are clearly and imminently violating them; from evil people who by their own violence have rejected their own individuality and thus their own relevancy and value and purpose for existence. My argument here is that evil people–people violating others–cannot be forced to act (violently coerced) because they are not people for as long as they accept that they may and do seek to destroy human beings.  These evil, violent men and women are not Individuals, by their own assumptions and presuppositions…that is, by their own ideas! They are forces of nature.  And in the same way as you are forced to deal with attacking wolves and biting snakes you are forced take steps to deal with these assholes. You see, because their evil forces you to react to them, in ways which often, and preferably, mean their destruction, it cannot be claimed that one who acts to protect his person and property is making an immoral choice…that is, is violating THEM.  You cannot ascribe a moral value to a necessary fact of one’s life: that one must live.  To refuse to defend one’s self and his or her property (or family) because one doesn’t want to do violence against another “human being” is a violation of reason, and thus morality and truth itself. To ascribe to the violent man the same existential definition of “self” as you would the man of peace and compassion is itself a violent act, violating the very fabric of love which allows for human beings to effect their humanity upon the world and upon others.  In short, it succumbs to evil as though surrendering to hell turns it into heaven.

Finally, it is an interesting thing to note that violent attackers violate the primary ethic of Self, or Self-ness, and in doing so they, in fact, and I mean at the most fundamental ontological level, murder themselves, not others.  The true victims of their evil are them, and for themselves it is hell that they must necessarily reap in this world and the next.

And the innocent have every right in creation to take them there.

To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is NOT Choice (Part 3)

(NOTE: I’m sure those of you who happen to read here notice that this is part three of a two part series.  Well…naturally, that makes no sense, so I have decided that it’s not longer a two-part series, but a series of indefinite parts.  Suffice to say that realized that I have much more to to contribute to this particular topic than I originally thought, so I am forced to extend it.  Thanks for your patience and flexibility.  Also, if you’ve not done so, please go back and read parts one and two, under a different title (more wordy): “You Vote Not for a Candidate, You Accept the Rule of the State: Voting, and why it is NOT choice”.)

*

A choice you are forced to make which subordinates you to an Authority–which by its very nature and the by the purpose for which it was established in the first place, assumes the right to compel your behavior without your consent–is not actually a choice.  It is the opposite of choice.  It is YOU, submitted to another against your will.  The fact that you can choose your overlord by a vote is besides the point.  Once you accept that the means of social organization is “legal” violence to compel “moral” outcomes (where morality and legal obedience have become corollary, which is utterly despotic) no matter how benevolent and/or productive those outcomes may be, you have rejected the idea that you really choose anything.  Whatever “choices” you make can only occur according to what the established authority will allow…which makes your choice nothing more than a direct function of the will of the Authority.  And if your choice is a function of another’s choice, which is what this means, then you don’t really have any choice at all.

*

When the outcome of a free choice is implemented specifically through submission to an determining Authority–established precisely to compel you into a subjective moral obligation through violence–then its not a choice.  Its a rational contradiction, and as such it cannot be practically realized.  It simply cannot.  You cannot implement in reality an idea that contradicts itself conceptually (rationally).  For example, cannot establish a free autocracy.  You cannot volunteer to be enslaved.  You cannot make a metal door out of wood.  Man’s ability to know anything about objective reality, and then to manipulate it to his own purposes, depends upon him not contradicting the terms by which he organizes it conceptually. Man’s conceptualizing faculty and objective reality are NOT mutually exclusive, and cannot effectively nor rationally be made distinct.  Because what man cannot conceptually organize he cannot observe.  And this I understand is not an intuitive notion, nevertheless, what man cannot say IS, because it both IS and IS NOT (e.g. it is blue but is simultaneously red; it is flying but is  simultaneously walking) he cannot identify as anything except a nullification of itself…as a VOID.  As a NOT.  And what is NOT, cannot exist.  And if it cannot exist it cannot be known, and therefore it cannot be established.

*

Disobedience to an Authority, due to the very nature of Authority, is not allowed.  This is precisely because IT IS AUTHORITY.  And I know what some of you are thinking, so I will address it now.  Submitting oneself to an entity which exists singularly upon the premise that man must be governed–which means he must be compelled by force into moral behavior because his nature will not allow him to effectively survive according his own unfettered will alone–is not the same thing as engaging in a voluntary contract with another person, where both parties are obligated to the terms, as necessary to the rational definition of a mutually beneficial exchange of value, or “voluntarism”, which is the only rational and legitimate ethic that exists, I submit.  For if the parties involved do not fulfill their contractual obligations then no exchange of value has occurred, by definition, and thus the contract is void, and the remiss party or parties are guilty of violating not the “law”, and not even the contract itself, but their fellow manthat by which the contract has any meaning, purpose, or value in the first place.  And this is an actual violation of morality, as opposed to merely a legal one.  And a legal one is not actually immoral because it is not the law nor the authority which grants man his moral value, but man which grants moral value, or any value, or any relevancy, to anything, including the law.  It is man which is the moral reference.  Not the law, not the contract, and not Authority.

Additionally, a governing authority by its very nature and purpose declares that man is not capable, by his own nature, of defining the terms of such a contract in the first place.  Because he is at his very root depraved, and incapable of truly living according to voluntary interaction (because this necessitates an ability to truly define and then willfully implement moral standards, which man doesn’t posses), then he cannot actually agree to a contract.  He must have “contracts” forced upon him by an authority which may use violence against him should he refuse them.  Which he will, because it’s his nature, which is why the authority exists in the first place.

An authority like the State exists solely and in every case to force compliance to the abstract moral standard, the “law”.  And man is by nature is antithetical to this standard…he does not by his nature bring anything of any worth to it at all…and this because he exhibits willful behavior, which his utterly insufficient (depraved) nature demands he use to reject the law, not to promote or obey it.  And this is why man must be violently compelled into obedience.  In other words, the reason man must be governed is precisely because he cannot actually obey the moral standard, the law, at all.  By nature.  He therefore must be sacrificed to it…and not only because he cannot obey it, but because it, not man, is that from which “goodness” flows…as it, not man, is the moral standard.  IT gives goodness to man, not the other way around.  And IT, being absolute goodness, and therefore absolutely true, and therefore absolutely efficacious, must consume everything around it. And it is the job of the Authority to make this happen.  It is the job of those who must exist as the practical, willful conscience of the Law–the Law incarnate–to compel integration.  Which, practically speaking, means that those in authority are not looking at you as one to whom they must give respect, or one whose interests they serve.  On the contrary, by the very nature of authority, the relationship is precisely the opposite.  You shall serve them, as they, as far as you are concerned, are the law to which you are obligated to make absolute sacrifice.  And this being the case, your choice is besides the point.  Which makes voting nothing more than a ritual designed to assure your obedience by giving you the impression that you somehow possess autonomy.  It plays to your naturally depraved and thoroughly false sense of individual identity while conditioning in you instinctive obedience.

It begs admiration as brilliant, in a Machiavellian kind of way.

Part 4 next. Stay tuned.

 

Communism and the Income Tax are the Same Thing

Controlling the means of production and taxing labor are at root the same thing; they merely approach the right of the State to own its citizens from different angles.  The first precedes profit (assumes future income and seizes it), the second follows profit (seizes income that has been made). They both assume the right of the State to commandeer (take without permission) its citizens’ profit by force.

Further, the distinction is most clearly obliterated when we realize that the real means of production is the individual.  Taking from the individual in the interest of the State by assuming the right to seize by violence whatever he produces, regardless of how–by building a factory or simply working in one–is the root of both ideas.

And truly, you cannot take from the individual without his consent unless you have already disregarded consent as being an illegitimate component of social value exchange.  And as surely as night becomes day once consent is disregarded man is no longer a human being to be bargained with but a thing to be owned.