It is an unfortunate and uncomfortable truth that Christianity, since at least the days of Augustine, and Communism, with all of its insipid incarnations, are philosophically and structurally identical. Both have an absolute Ideal to which all people are not only obligated, but of which all people are an absolute function. In Christianity this Ideal is God. In Communism this Ideal is the Working Class…or the People. Now of course in America’s incarnation of Communism, which is more ostensibly of the social type, the Ideal is Diversity, or Social Justice. Of course any person who is even remotely honest with himself understands that these are simply euphemisms for anti-white racism and (usually white, heterosexual, cisgendered) anti-male sexism. Both have an absolute Authority which exists to force compliance to the Ideal, which means that the Authority possesses the absolute legal right to commit violence against anyone it deems to be in violation of the moral and metaphysical tenets of the Ideal, and which exists as the Ideal’s physical and practical incarnation. In Christianity this Authority is the priesthood class, which also includes typically protestant officials like pastors and various deacons and even “home/care group” leaders. And in Communism this Authority is the Party. Within the Authority is a hierarchy of power which culminates at the top with a single official ultimately wielding the sum and substance of the entire panoply of the power of the Authority. In Christianity this can be the Pope or the Head/Lead Pastor, depending on which denomination is under consideration. And in Communism the top of the Authority pyramid is occupied by the General Secretary, or the Chancellor, or the Fuhrer, or the President, etcetera, etcetera. Both share a common enemy which is given various names at various times in various contexts to whip up popular frenzy against this enemy. However, at root the enemy is simply the individual: he who either implicitly or explicitly believes himself to be a function of himself: to possess himself, and to be the sole vessel which carries the existential (or metaphysical) means and reasons to manifest himself upon his environment–that is, by himself, for himself, and to himself–and who ultimately believes that he alone does, and that he alone may rightly, OWN himself.
The political violence (mostly on the left) you see on the news every night is merely a perfunctory iteration of the Hegelian dialectic…used necessarily by collectivists of all stripes throughout the world over the years: create chaos–manage the chaos towards the desired outcome.
Now, when I say “collectivists”, I don’t simply mean the various iterations of socialism (Marxism, Fascism, cultural leftism…which is just Marxism with the “classes” loosely categorized by race). I mean anyone who believes that the social and/or economic interaction of human beings can rationally and efficacious be dictated in any measure by violence or threats thereof. That is, anyone who believes that the State, which is at root purely force (for without the ability to violently punish those who do not submit to its authority, there is no State, period), can possess any legitimate role in the rational existence of humanity.
Whether you know it or admit it or not, you are a collectivist. You assert that individuals can and should be legitimately subject to a common moral code–which is nothing more than a collective identity, where they are bound to others not by choice but by force–that is, without their consent. For the very existence of government in any measure implies forced compliance. And force is mutually exclusive of choice. By definition. There is no way to produce a free society by obligating at gunpoint individuals to codefied, collective behaviors. Period. The contradiction destroys reason; and since human freedom is reasonable, it must necessarily destroy freedom.
And minarchists, this means you, too.
You are either a voluntarist or you are a socialist; an individualist or a collectivist. There simply is no in between.
As long as social contract exists under the auspices of government power (i.e. obedience to Law as the highest moral value; thereby transferring the moral reference from the individual to the Law…which is really just the government, because absent the supremacy of state power (violence) the Law has no practical jurisdiction and therefore is irrelevant)…yes, as long as social contact exists under the auspices of government power, society will only ever be chaos controlled by the coercive violence wielded by a few over the many.
The fight for power and the necessary increase in governmental jurisdiction implied by the premise (that man needs government to survive his own existence…that absent someone to FORCE his obedience to an abstract, subjective set of codified values (the Law) man cannot exist) means that eventually the whole system collapses into pit of madness and blood. Then the few bleary-eyed survivors rebuild and start the whole process over again.
And that’s what the fuss is all about.
Welcome to the matrix.
And you thought it was just a movie.
You cannot disseminate morality, which is predicated upon choice, through rules…or, more specific to this article, the formal codification of rules, the Law. This is because the Law, being what it is, and referencing its own definition, demands obedience. In other words, the Law doesn’t care about choice; it’s irrelevant. And this is because the Law, again being what it is, and again referencing its own definition, doesn’t give you a choice. It can’t give you a choice. It can’t give you a choice to obey or not without contradicting itself. “Obey or else” is only ostensibly a choice; but it simply does not qualify as a legitimate one. Disobedience is met with punishment; and punishment is in fact corollary to forced compliance. And forced compliance cannot by definition integrate choice. Because the only “choice”, when all the semantics and hypotheticals contradict themselves out of the equation, is “do it or die”. And that’s not a choice; and if you think it is…you’re a monster, and shouldn’t be within a thousand miles of another human being.
The forced compliance endemic to the Law means that you either obey it or you get hurt. Be it incarceration or separation from your property or death (which is what the State always prefers, believe it or not…because a dead man is the only good man; you’ll get it in a minute). What this means at root is that you never fundamentally get to act on your own absolute behalf. Your actions are always under the auspices of the Law. Meaning you either act in obedience to the Law or you are subject to acute pain (as opposed to the general psychological torment, conscious or unconscious, of a context where all actions are a function of what you are allowed to do by a small group of people weilding the apical and supremely ferocious violence of State). Choice is irrelevant; a non-issue; lacking any efficacy whatsoever. You never, ever genuinely get to be you. Your expression of yourself is utterly defined and therefore infinitely limited by your implicit and sacrificial obligation to the Law, carried out by the State. And this is why the Law cannot create a moral society. The Law inoculates man against choice, which destroys man’s ability to act freely. Which means man cannnot act morally. Which means he cannot be moral. Which means that the Law, existing specifically to ensure a moral social context, must inevitably destroy humanity. There is therefore no such thing as man’s prosperity, peace, or freedom according to the Law. Which means that these things cannot and will not be produced in any context where the Law and the State exist. Never. Because should the Law and the State produced these things they would not be the Law or the State. A duck does not give birth to a tree; and there are no candles made of water. The State does not bring freedom to the people it owns! The State, being tasked with establishing the Law, cannot recognize the individual; it must possess him. That is, it must consume him. Which is to destroy him…in order to make him good. This is a contradiction.
The Law and the State are, practically speaking, the forced behavior of man…making the individual an extension of themselves–that is, doing ONLY those things the State orders on behalf of the Law (eventually resulting the the annihilation of the people when it realizes that this is impossible). Therefore the Law, and the State do not recognize any action by the individual qua the individual. The individual then, in the True and Rational and fundamentally metaphysical sense, is invisible. He will not be seen by them.
He cannot be seen by them.
I submit that Morality cannot be codified; it is ontologically endemic; it’s a function of the Self qua the Self. Morality cannot be put into a list and then applied to humanity collectively. And this is because morality, being a function of the Individual Self, is absolutely and fundamentally individual. And it is indeed absolute…for you are nothing if not YOU, and utterly so (meaning it is impossible to quantify You…to make your ONE and ONLY knowable frame of reference for all reality a matter of parts). Morality observed and understood rationally demands that the individual, in his singular existential context, be viewed as the Moral Standard.
All this being true, morality is therefore automatically and categorically contradicted when codified. Once listed, it is removed from the individual, placed beyond his true and objective experience and reality and becomes nothing but a set of abstract rules which then attempts to define and contextualize all individual experience into a single collective category: the Law. And just like that man’s moral worth is no longer a function of himself and his own unique experiences and relationships; relationships where he honors the morality of other men by treating them with the same respect and sanctity with which he rationally should be treated…as a matter of choice, NOT threats, making violations of his fellow man TRULY immoral and himself TRULY guilty. Instead it becomes a function of obedience to the Law. And since obedience is fundamentally not a choice, because demands of obedience promise punishment for disobedience, which taken to its logical conclusion means the right of an Authority–always established specifically to force compliance to the Law–to destroy those who do not obey, then choice is removed from the individual’s existential equation. That is, once morality is a function of force and not choice, it is no longer morality by definition. You see, if one acts under the threat of death, then they are not choosing to act; they are acting as merely a necessary matter of course, invoking no more volition than they do when breathing or sweating. For there is no such thing as a choice between death and life, because there is no true choice between nothing and something.
So the Law, in an effort to create a moral society, does the exact opposite. It strips man of his individuality, which is his entire and self-evident frame of reference for ALL things and ALL reality, which thus nullifies choice. And once man cannot choose to do good then he cannot do good at all, ever, because morality and choice are corollaries. And if man cannot do good then there is only one thing that the Authority (which always means the State, because Authority and State are corollaries, too), which is specifically tasked with manifesting GOOD, can do with man.
And here then we have this equation:
Morality = Law = State = violence to compel Man to Law = death of man = death of Law = death of State
And this is the self-nullifying progression of collectivist ideology upon which ALL governments are based. Notice that it demands the death of man in favor of absolute, and absolutely abstract, Authority, as the practical application of the Moral Standard: the Law. Morality, and thus the entirety of the worth of man, becomes a function of the degree to which he is sacrificed to the Law, which is (as corollary) his sacrifice to the State. Naturally then the greater the degree of sacrifice the closer he is to moral perfection. Inevitably then man is, in the latter stages of a given State’s evolution, sacrificed absolutely–his greatest moral accomplishment being his death, by the State, in order to completely satisfy the Law (and, yes, Jesus Christ is an apt example of this: His death was ultimately a POLITICAL one, no matter what mystic pablum the church spins for you). The Law thus, in the real and rational sense, is merely violence against man for the sake of violence. This is because once there are no more men left to destroy the Law becomes moot. For without the blood of man in which to bathe what is the Law? After all, the Law is not for itself, but for man…the Law for itself is a contradiction in terms.
So…the purpose of the Law is to morally perfect that which it must annihilate. (Find the contradiction in any idea and you will find the evil.) And when the consequences of attempting to implement such rank and pernicious hypocrisy collapse under the weight of years and years of contradiction disguised as regulatory and electoral “fixes”, the few traumatized and stumbling, delirious and starving survivors slowly come together and resolve to rebuild…and invariably start the whole process over again.
Humanity…when shall we ever learn?
Only in fantasy stories do kings wake up and cast off their Wormtongues. This is because Wormtongue is the reality of the innate and necessary corruption of Authority–the compelling of behavior by “legal” violence, despite the most noble of rulers and their noble intentions.
You see, in reality, it is Wormtongue who speaks the truth to the King; and it is the King’s conscience which lies. A “good King”–that is, a truthful and honest king, who is consistent with the metaphysic which demands Authority to compel obedience to Law–will abide Wormtongue and banish love.
Is this good, rationally speaking? Of course not: but again, it is good IF we accept the axiomatic definition of Man which necessitates the idea that it is appropriate to govern him. And by “govern” I mean: organize his behavior, specifically his interactions with himself (men and women associating with others), by codifying moral behavior (Law), and thus moving it outside of its only true and natural source, the individual, and thereby making morality utterly abstract and thus utterly subjective as far as man is concerned, and thereby necessitating an Authority–be it a King or any other incarnation of State Violence (that is, the State, period), even “democratically elected public officials” (and by the bye, a greater example of raw, meaningless, subjectivity you’ll not find anywhere than those words)–whose authority transcends any real rational integrity, and who fundamentally exists for the sole purpose of using force and threats to cause the obedience of the denizens.
And what is this definition of man?
It is that he is not him Self. He is not “I”. “I” is an illusory existential frame of reference–a lie–which, by its inexorable and infinite hold on him, makes him unable to perceive the Truth: which is that he is, in fact, nothing at all. That he qua he (he as Individual), is really an infinite collection. He is the group, yet never OF the group. He is “race”, or “class”, or “sex”, or “nation”, or “church”, or “minority”, or “underprivileged”, etc.. The individual is the group; which contradicts his individuality, and thus demands that it be sacrificed by the Authority into the collective “reality.”
And so I say again, any honest King, with even the slightest apprehension of just what the fuck his whole point is, and whether he admits it to himself or not, understands that he is Violence to men, and literally nothing else. He IS the force which compels everyone and everything into the collective Ideal. He is The Efficacy of the Ideal…of the Utopia…of the Collective Paradise. And thus, he IS the very Ideal itself. And this being true, it is his duty to incessantly invite Wormtongue to stifle whatever compassion he may be tempted towards. For to deny the raw and unfettered subjugation and sacrifice of men is to deny the Ideal, and thus deny himself.
There is no such thing as a King with a conscience. Any such King admits, whether he knows it or not, that he is a fraud, and that sooner or later, the kingdom MUST collapse.
And it will.
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, period. There 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.
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.
(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.
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.
Government is “legal” violence. And what is “legal” violence? Simple. It is the violence necessary to compel the naturally evil individual into the collective moral code.
This “need” for “legal” (read “moral”) violence is predicated upon a false metaphysic: that individual man does evil by existing at all. In other words, to be man is to be evil. The Christians call this Total or Pervasive Depravity. Most other religions have their own labels, but it’s metaphysically identical.