Political parties are little more than the illusion that somehow there is a difference in ruling classes.
The bromide of political parties lulls the people into thinking that there are people in government who are on their side; who care about them, and who wish to direct government towards their ultimate well-being.
Political parties all mean the same thing: Authority. and Authority is force. And force is violence. And that violence is always directed from the ruling class to the people. Period. They are the rulers, you are the ruled. What you want, what you care about, what you feel, what you believe are always subject to the authority of the state. That is the nature of law and the government which is the incarnation of the law. Law commands, it does not negotiate, it does not cooperate, it does not compromise. The law dictates, and you obey or you are punished. It is as simple as that. You can dress it up in tales and fantasies of representation and democracy and free elections., but you cannot escape the absolute fact that it is a contradiction in terms to clam that you can freely choose those who will rule you. If you can choose between candidate A and candidate B but there is no option for NO candidate and NO office, then your choice is an illusion. The purpose of the State and the political class is to rule you…how that might look based upon the party initial tagged after a politician’s name is purely window dressing. In the end, it all becomes the same same-tyranny. This is why no mater how many democrats or republicans we elect in this country the slide towards plenary state control over all facets of individual life proceeds unhindered, year after year, day after day, election after election. It is not you and and the republicans politicians versus the democrats, or you and the democrat politicians versus the republicans. It is you versus the ruling class. It is them and us. That is the only real and true distinction.
Yet this does not mean that conservatives and liberals represent the exact same type of philosophical thinking…at least at the less fundamental levels. The outcome of the governance is truly the same tyranny, but this is because neither group understands that the logical conclusion of their philosophical assumptions cannot be achieved by the State. So, in an attempt to create that square circle, they contorts and manipulate the State into the chaotic totalitarian monster that it always becomes in end, and the entire thing inevitably collapses, and the ruling class is left scratching their heads and wondering what in the hell went wrong.
I will tell you.
It all has to do with how conservatives and liberals view human nature…their metaphysical assumptions about man. Liberals assume that man is fundamentally depraved, and utterly unsuited to his own existence. Man is born absent the natural capacity to apprehend truth, and because of that, he lacks the ability to exercise his will in service to morality and virtue. Or, man is born absent the ability to do goodness, even if he apprehends truth. It really doesn’t matter, because it means the same thing: man cannot be trusted to work out his own existence based solely upon his own existential merits. If left to himself, man will collapse into an ocean of vice and murder and exploitation and self-destruction. Therefore, a mystical priest class of philosopher kings who are somehow transcendently enlightened must force the barbarian masses into right thinking and right actions, via laws which they will obey under penalty of torment and death.
The problem is that because it is human nature which is flawed, meaning that man at his most basic and fundamental existential level is utterly insufficient for his own existence, the philosopher kings and their governments must ultimately fail in their supreme goal of saving man from himself, and fail to create a perfect utopia of morality and virtue (whatever that is to look like based upon the political convenience of the time, e.g. a Workers Utopia, a Social Justice Utopia, an Aryan Utopia, etc.).
The only fix for a mankind which is utterly flawed at its very existential root is not to have been born at all. Man is evil BECAUSE he exists—this is the only true metaphysical premise one can conclude from the assumption of man’s natural insufficiency to truth and morality. Therefore the control of man by the State must extend all the way to the very root of man’s existence. The State must BECOME man for him. In other words, man is annihilated instead of ushered into the moral utopia. The State destroys him instead of saving him.
This is the liberal failure.
Now, conservatives are like liberals in their metaphysical assumption about the nature of man, but their assumptions regarding man’s natural depravity are implicit, rather than explicit. This is why liberals and conservatives are not the same thing separated only by superficial semantics, but are instead like two sides of the same coin. The same but different, you could say.
Conservatives assert, and actually do believe to an extent, that the individual is sacrosanct in his essence. They claim the intrinsic natural worth of the individual, and thus make at the very least an implicit claim that man is by nature capable of truth and thus of pursuing moral virtue in and of himself. In other words, man is not considered by conservatives to be a failure to his own existence…at least not explicitly, as the liberals do. They see man as inherently able in and of himself, and yet, man alone still cannot achieve the kind of moral, harmonious existence which allows him to express his worthy nature.
But why is this? If man is of himself capable of truth and morality, then what is his stumbling block?
In conservative metaphysics, as far as I can deduce, the problem isn’t man himself, but man’s environment that poses the insurmountable barrier to his existential success. Man’s inherent virtue finds no soil on earth, because the environment (however that happens to be defined…sometimes it’s defined as the hinderances of evil men, or the hinderances of the natural world, or the limitations of man’s own physical or intellectual powers) is utterly prohibitive of his success, being entirely incompatible (again for a plethora of reasons, as the times make convenient to the conservative ruling class) with man’s nature, though nan’s nature be fundamentally good.
This is where the conservative version of government comes in. The point of the State is to allow—and this is a very, very important term…it is the crux of conservative hypocrisy—for the actual efficacy of man’s capable nature. Man is free to exercise his own mind and will and values only after the State has instituted decrees and has underwritten these decrees with laws which allow him to do so. Those decrees are known as “rights”, and they do not meaningfully and efficaciously exist without the State.
What this means is that the right of man to freely express himself upon his environment can and will be violated without the presence of the State to ensure that the environment accommodates man. This makes “rights” something non-inherent and endemic to mans existence, itself. Rights are institutionalized and rendered meaningful by the State, and these rights are the only effective hedge for man against an environment which will ineluctably annihilate him without the institutionalized acknowledgement of man’s rights, and the implicit violence, through the law, that the State exercises in service to them.
And here is where the conservative metaphysical failure converges with the liberal one. Here is where the coin is forged.
In both instances man’s effective moral existence utterly depends upon the State…man must be accommodated to his own existence by the coercive violent Authority of the ruling class. The left does it by forcing man into his environment, and the right does it by forcing the environment into man. And the difference HERE is of course purely semantic. It is two different ways of saying the same thing. Man’s nature and the environment in which he finds himself are entirely antithetical to one another, and the ruling class exists to force a union between them by coercive violence called “the Law”.
Conservatives will tell you that their brand of government allows you to live free. But “allowing” and “freedom” are mutually exclusive political concepts. You are not free to do that which you are ALLOWED to do by one who has the power and authority to nullify that behavior should they deem it necessary. To be allowed to do something implies authority by its very definition, and living under authority is NOT freedom. It is the utter opposite of freedom. Conservatives allowing people to live free quickly becomes conservatives dictating just what freedom shall look like.
The logical conclusion of liberal ruling class metaphysics is the categorical death of man; the logical conclusion of conservative ruling class metaphysics is the same, it’s just that conservative metaphysics take the scenic route—man’s categorical death is implicit, rather than explicit. The nod to man’s fundamental natural ability to apprehend truth and exercise that truth in service to morality implies that man should be free, in the true sense of the word. Man, because he possesses a natural ability to work out his own existence by the qualities he is born with, need NOT be governed at all, and his natural state is freedom—not under law, not under force, not under authority. But this state of man is of course completely opposed to government, which includes a conservative government, which includes the conservative ruling class. This of course cannot and will not be tolerated by the conservative ruling class, and so this class winds up looking and acting just like every other ruling class:
In both the liberal and conservative cases, the utopia they promise the masses never materializes, and the masses are left exploited, tortured, and murdered..