All posts by Argo

Why the “Border” Doesn’t Actually Exist as Such to Governments

Authority, government, Violence, Voluntarism, , , ,

The State–the Government–cannot rationally recognize any limitation to its power. (And this fact is purely logical, where I define “logic” here as rational consistency.) This is because government is Authority, and Authority is Force. Force qua Force is not compatible with, nor can it fundamentally be subject to, ideas, reason, compromise, Truth, ethics or morality, context, reality, opinions, pragmatism, rights, etc.. In other words, government, at root, is monolithic violence, and thus all of its actions–when all equivocations, paradoxes, and prevarications are distilled down to the logical axioms–are merely the exercise of violence for the sake of violence.

I understand that this is difficult to both accept and to apprehend/comprehend, but the rationally consistent fact is that actions spurred on by authority, by definition, are mutually exclusive of anything requiring the recognition of individual existential/ontological “rights”; that is, the right of the free intellectual and moral agent to utterly own himself and therefore manifest his own singular life according to his own will…and this axiom (that man is only man if there is the corollary of Will) is a metaphysical, ethical, and social primary which necessarily (rationally) demands that all individual interactions with one another be completely voluntary. But as soon as you inject Force via the notion of “governing Authority” into the equation, you have again by definition contradicted all manner of free and voluntary expression. That is, Force and Will are utterly incompatible, because Will requires categorical voluntary interaction in order to  actually be willful.

Now, all of this is to say that geopolitical “borders” are of no relevance to government except as a yet another means of asserting its power; an expression of Force, to the infinite expansion of itself. They will be “opened” or “closed” not in service to the sanctity of a nation’s individual citizens, who are also merely a target of its Force, but only in service to its own Infinite Absolute.

So, for those of you scratching you heads at the utter disregard our government has for US border security at the moment, and the persistent demagoguery it displays (along with the left in general, which is the overtly statist of the two major political philosophies) with respect to calling border security advocates racists and imbeciles, now you know why. It is merely pursuing the logical ends of the premises behind it.

What You’re Really Afraid Of, Brother and Sister American

Authority, government, Violence, , ,

You who are afraid of white nationalism, you aren’t afraid of white nationalism. And you who are afraid of black nationalism, you aren’t afraid of black nationalism. And you who are afraid of radical Islam, you aren’t afraid of radical Islam. And you who are afraid of the Moral Majority, you aren’t afraid of the Moral Majority. And you who are afraid of refugees, you aren’t afraid of refugees. And you who are afraid of socialized medicine, you aren’t afraid of socialized medicine. And you who are afraid of illegal immigration, you aren’t afraid of illegal immigration. And you who are afraid of the socialists, or fascists, or anarchists, or unregulated markets, or corporate bribery, or corporate welfare, you aren’t afraid of…that.

What you are afraid of, is that you will have no choice. You are afraid that when some people get what they want, you will be compelled at gunpoint to take what you don’t want.

What you are afraid of…

Is force.

And you should be. There is one Master, you see; one State. And those of its children it decides it shall love at any given moment, will be fed its children that it decides it shall hate.

And you are afraid you will be that child.

Why Can’t We Just Leave Politics Out of Our Relationships?

General Philosophy, government, Metaphysics, , ,

Though politics may be an uncomfortable topic for many, having the potential to rend relationships irreparably in two, or turn a happy Thanksgiving  gathering into a screaming hell, knowing someone’s politics can and often is immeasurably important.

This is because it necessarily speaks to one’s interpretation of reality, one’s core ethics and values. And since most people are not prepared to define their metaphysical, epistemological, and moral primaries (they have them, they just can’t articulate them) qua metaphysics, epistemology, and morality, talking politics is, I would argue, a great vehicle for learning them. Because , let’s face it, everyone has has an opinion–an articulated, and generally well thought-out opinion–on politics. Everyone. Even those who insist they don’t almost certainly do.

Political opinions are more than just a window to the soul…to the rocky depths of a person’s entire belief system.  They are a giant glass dome which offers a view into the foundational character of a person–a character based upon the philosophical assumptions by which they interpret all of reality, including and especially how they value other people, of which I am one.  And how and when I expose myself to philosophical assumptions from which either positive or destructive behaviors will flow towards me is something over which I prefer to have control. Because this is the key to happiness. That is, the key to happiness is avoiding abuse. And abuse is always applied as an  extension of the most basic ideas about the nature of reality, and especially the value of others. And one’s politics quickly and easily illuminate these ideas.

Add to that, you and I are not superheroes. We have a very limited amount of emotional and intellectual capital to spend, not to mention time. I’d rather spend it on people who do not hold drastically different assumptions, as those relationships are almost certain to fail, and with that failure will cost me the requisite amount of psychological and emotional fallout.

In 44 years of life never had a good–well, a close–relationship with a leftist–a collectivist: Marxist, socialist, Statist, a communist, or mystic (a religious person whose beliefs are rationally inconsistent…which is most of them). The reason is simple: these people concede something about human nature–at the most basic level; at the level of metaphysics and ontology–that is the categorical antipode of what I believe. This root assumption about humanity–about me–gives meaning and purpose to all they think and do. And because the core beliefs are so utterly different, there is no real compatibility in the relationship, and this must become evident sooner or later. In other words, if your fundamental beliefs are utterly opposed to mine, so must your behavior be also. And that’s behavior which I must, due to the value I place upon myself and truth, avoid to the greatest degree possible.

In other words, it’s hard to play checkers with you if you bring a racket to the table and proceed to swing at the pieces. If we have completely different fundamental ideas, we are playing at completely different games.

So…that’s why politics.

 

Cause, Effect, and Movement Exist Only by the Cognition of the Observer

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , ,

The human ability to conceptualize from the frame of reference of the Self is not simply an evolutionary extension of the mathematically determined machinations of an “objective reality outside” of one’s consciousness/cognition, but is integral to objective reality itself, at the most fundamental level. I submit that absent man’s ability to conceptualize the movement of what he observes (that is, man as the Observer) and to establish Self as the reference–as the constant–it is impossible that there is any movement at all, and therefore can be no evolutionary/mathematical “cause and effect” interaction of objects in the material universe.

To claim that there is any such thing as as object movement, or cause and effect interaction, once the observer is removed from the equation is impossible. Because once he who provides the reference by which any such cause and effect interaction and/or object movement has any meaning (including relevancy,  purpose, direction, velocity, distance, etc.) there is no rational argument for asserting or believing that it is happening at all in some “objective reality” that can somehow excludes the very thing that gives that reality any value.

In other words, once movement is no longer observed (and by “observed”, again, I mean not only perception, but the cognitive power of conceptualization), movement has no specific context; no reference by which it can be gauged as “movement” qua movement. This means that without a reference, all movement–and therefore all cause and effect interactions and their “mathematical” deterministic mechanisms–is relative not to a specific but to an absolute degree. And absolute relativity of movement–that is, relative interaction with no set reference provided by the conceptualizing observer–means that all movement of all objects “mathematically” sums to zero. Meaning that absolute relativity, by nature, instantaneously nullifies any movement by any object at any given moment. And if all movement in all moments sums to zero because of un-referenced relativity, then there is, in fact, no movement at all; because movement with zero value is the absence of movement, by definition.

For a simple example, let’s take object A and object B in co-existing in a vacuum (where all must exist if we concede a plurality of existence–that things which exist are utterly distinct from one another). Because of the relative nature of movement, existence in a vacuum demands that any movement by A is automatically and instantaneously transferred to B, and vice versa. There is no way in this vacuum, absent an observer, to claim that only A moves, and not B. In other words, because their existence is again necessarily relative, any movement of A is also the movement of B. And by this I mean that B’s movement is not a reciprocal movement; it’s not a corollary movement; it is the same movement; the movement of A is the movement of B. There is one, un-shared movement. B moves equally as A moves as though B were in fact acting categorically as A.

How can this be?

A scenario where two objects with a single movement by both but no reference to measure which object has moved contradicts the plurality of existence between A and B. There can be no interaction between such objects; no distinction. Any action of one is the action of the other…and because existence is an action, even rank co-existence is impossible.

In a vacuum with no observer, object A moving relative to B while B is not moving, demands the corollary that B is moving relative to A while A is not moving; which means it is axiomatic that objects A and B in the instance of any movement must have both moved and also must have both not moved at the same time. And what this means is that movement in such an absolute relative relationship is a context where the movement of objects and the absence of movement by objects are one and the same.

Which is impossible. The integration of mutually mutually exclusive properties (e.g. movement and non-movement) nullifies them both, rendering to them an existential, moral, and rational value of zero; of NOT; of VOID. That is, of a purely abstract, imagined, placeholder status.

The relative context then, and again, necessitates at a fundamental, axiomatic level the conscious perspective of the observer, who is able to conceptualize relative distinctions between objects using himSELF as the reference.

Now, Objectivists and other “empirical” philosophers will almost certainly accuse me of promulgating a Primacy of Consciousness metaphysic, but this is in large part because they suppose that one can separately categorize evidence and reason, which is not actually possible. There can be no objective, empirical evidence which is also a conceptual contradiction. Of course the light wave/particle paradox is often trotted out as a rebuttal to this assertion, but this is easily rebuffed using reason (which I won’t explain here).

I wish to be clear that I am not proposing a purely subjective, “ethereal” metaphysic…and frankly, this is an amateurish criticism. On the contrary, because rational consistency is necessary to the apprehension and definition of Truth, as the above discussion on relativity and movement indicates, it is impossible that one can claim any efficacious philosophical (metaphysics through aesthetics) positions based purely upon subjective standards. This is because subjectivism necessarily equals contradiction. And contradiction is NOT an idea, it is the absence of one.

Further, to argue that the individual conscious observer’s self-evidentiary and necessary inclusion in anything objectively true (self/evident because truth is only known by conscious individuals) is somehow a bias and a liability to reality is the very definition of absurdity. But further discussion of this is better suited to a separate article…the topic is too complex and involved to serve as a side note for this one.

The point of this article is that man’s consciousness–his conceptualizing ability–is much more than a perfunctory extension of some ethereal, evolutionary, determinative force in the “objective” universe–a force which must necessarily contradict itself by spawning such a consciousness in the first place. Rather, it is a fundamental component of rational consistency, and thus is indespensible in any definition or discussion of objective reality. Human cognition; consciousness; conceptualization; awareness of Self is inexorably tied to the metaphysical axiom–the irreducible Truth from which ALL things spring.

Aphorism of the Day: Ideas + Force = Force

Aphorisms, Authority, government, Violence, ,

The problem with those who wish to organize society by means of a central governing authority (the State), is not that they don’t have any good ideas, it’s that ther ideas are always a package deal with government force. Which obliterates the ideas, rendering them fundamentally (at the roots of the philosophy) irrelevant, and leaves us only with force.

Trump Like Hitler? Well, Let’s Compare Contexts.

Authority, government, ,

USA, 2016: Muslims commit mass murder on a wide scale; US at war or has very poor relations with roughly six Muslim countries and is responsible for thousands if not millions of Muslim deaths; Donald Trump calls for a ban on Muslim entry into the US to protect Americans from the people with whom the country is overtly at war, and is derided as a racist and Islamophobe while his detractors, including anti-war leftists, never mention the wars or the deaths of Muslims perpetuated by the current democratic administration.

Germany, 1939: Jews commit no violent crimes of any appreciable amount and perpetrate zero acts of what could be called terrorism; Germany at war with zero Jewish nations, because none exist, because for thousands of years Jews have been forcefully exiled and expelled from almost every place they’ve settled, primarily because they come from a tradition of reason, the ownership and promotion of private property and the free market, and of self-realization and individual self-worth, which is anathema to the rest of the world, which concedes almost categorically some form of philosophical gnosticim/mysticism; Hitler openly scapegoats the Jews in his autobiography and likens them to an evil, subversive, monolithic force, and, far beyond the call for banning their entry into the German state, indicates the necessity of rank banishment, the violent seizure of all Jewish private assets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and mass extermination.

And in the US today, both the leftist ideologues and right-wing political establishment declare a moral and political equivalency between Hitler and Trump.

There is no basis for this.

If You Really Care About Who Gets Elected, Reject FORCE as a Means to Socially Organize Humanity, and Become a Voluntarist

Authority, government, Metaphysics, , , ,

Despite the claims that one candidate is more or less libertarian than the other (a “classic liberal”–that is, a small government advocate) it is important to remember that due to the nature of the State, or a centralized governing Authority (which is merely a monopoly of force–violence to compel individual behavior on a mass scale), or, more precisely, the human metaphysical premise upon which the State is based–that man, by his nature (i.e. his tendency to evil, where “evil” is defined by referencing morality to the collective which the State “represents”) MUST be governed–yes, it is important to remember that the election of any representative is merely another hash mark on the evolutionary line of inevitable totalitarianism. To be concerned over one political candidate versus another, while ostensibly relevant, is merely to concede cognitive dissonance as the plumb line for political and/or moral truth.

The fact is that as soon as the State is inserted (and it must be inserted, never volunteered or freely admitted) it does not ultimately matter who is elected…for the very presence of the State must necessarily subordinate the individual to a reality where truth and morality are a function of force (violence) at the hands of the Authority and not understanding or will.

Here’s why (one of several reasons):

There’s no such thing as the integration of behavior by choice, and behavior by force. Mutually exclusive concepts cannot be practically applied. This is precisely why human epistemology is meaningful and matters! It’s not subjective. You cannot manifest a contradiction because that categorically undermines the relevancy and efficacy of human knowledge. And further, it is summarily impossible to even CONCEIVE of a contradiction to practically apply in the first place! And that is the cognitive root of the disaster.

So…if you are really worried about who is going to be elected to represent “the people”, reject the abstraction (the “people”, the “nation”, the “common or collective good”, the “race”, the “church”, etc.); reject its agent of force (at the philosophical level), which is the State or the Rulers, or the Authority; reject voting for the deceptive pretense of violent coercion which it is, and become a rank voluntarist.

Socialism (or any Form of Collectivism) is Literally the Ideology of Nothingness

Authority, government, Metaphysics, , ,

The point of socialism is to subordinate man to nothing–or nothingness. By appealing to the authority of the State to rule on behalf of the “common good”, which is the collective that trumps the individual, socialism makes the rank absence of Self the objective. Thus, it is necessarily, inexorably, about the categorical elimination–not limitation– of opportunity.

That’s socialism, specifically. However, I would add the following in regards to all and any collectivist ideologies, and they are legion; and they all share in common the idea of “rule by authority”. And it is this, I submit, that at root defines collectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics, and which serves as the fulcrum of collectivism’s necessary tyranny, and general loathing of humanity:

An appeal to rule according to ANY amount of authority must inevitably subordinate the entirety of man to this authority.  This is because man’s Self, metaphysically speaking (metaphysics being the ontological primary–or the singularity from which all of a thing is derived) is absolute, and therefore any sanction of the Self by appealing to the right of authority to define Self for Self, must therefore also be absolute.

This raises an interesting (if not horrifying) contradiction. Man, himself, then, becomes absolutely irrelevant–and thus the authority claimed over him is rendered perfectly meaningless. And this is why all attempts to implement authority structures as a means of socially organizing human beings eventually manifest as rank and abject despotisms. Since man relies upon reason and rational consistency for his very survival, attempts to practically apply contradictions always fail…and in the process torment and murder millions.