(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 man…that 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.