Category Archives: individualism vs collectivism

The Fallacy of Codifying Ethics, Which Elevates Them to Morality; and the Related History of Man

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.

Annhiliate him.

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?

Any Honest King Will Keep His Wormtongue and Kill His Conscience

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.

It will.

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.

What is Government?: All you need to know in two brief paragraphs

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.

Why You Should and Should Not Debate the Collectivist

It’s an easy win debating Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, and other leftist demagogues. Which is why their ideas should be relentlessly dragged into the arena of thought…engaged and confronted, their failure on display for all but the insane to comprehend.

But at the same time, here is why they shouldn’t be debated:

THEY never actually debate, they scream and threaten and do violence.

They extort, they don’t reason.

They propagandize, they don’t inform.

They blackmail, they don’t explicate rational consequences.

They repress, they don’t encourage.

They virtue signal, they don’t love.

They are violence for violence’s sake. They are death for death’s sake. They are foolish for foolishness’s sake. Their peace is that of the grave; and their only cheer is the fleeting emotional orgasm of the serial killer, the two-bit despot, and the conquering tyrant.

So yes, throw up a wall of reason and goodness as smelling salts for their bromide, a palliative for their abuse, and a cure for their disease. But do it with courage, and prepared yourself for the devil. For the devil is in them.

When the State Asserts that Man is Both the Standard of Good and the Threat to the Good: The rational failure of a Government by and of the People

Man must be protected from himself is the argument for government in a nutshell. And this? Is a very bad argument. This sophist rationale is why freedom is never to be found under the auspices of government.

Any government.

Ever.

Anywhere.

Because freedom which is function of what an external monolith of “legal” violence, like the State, will allow is not freedom. It is, by definition, control. The phrase “that which allows us to be free” contains a fundamental contradiction in terms. Freedom does not and cannot operate under the auspices of threats of violence for stepping out of external, codified boundaries. And to say that these boundaries are what guarantees that freedom itself (in the form of unfettered wicked indulgence by the naturally depraved human being) doesn’t become oppressive is another contradiction, as it makes the restraint of freedom the foundational moral operation; it makes the limitation of freedom the means, so the argument goes, of ensuring freedom.  But unless man is able to choose his actions, by not having his behavior fundamentally dictated and coerced through threats of violence should be stray from an abstract, subjective (yes, subjective) legal code, there can be no morality. Why? Because there can be no choice. For if man cannot choose to do good, then man cannot do good at all. And actions which are compelled at gunpoint are not choices!

It is not necessarily intentional. It is not necessarily rank deception. It is most likely a function of the prevailing philosophy regarding the nature of man which has never, to my knowledge, been reconciled to reason…where reason is a place that cannot ever, under any circumstance, accommodate contradiction.

*

Because of man’s tendency to do evil, so the argument goes, left to his own unfettered (un-governed) devices society must inevitably dissolve into an orgy of tyranny and oppression.

This is a contradiction which nullifies the argument, and renders the practical application of it both impossible to any efficacy and ultimately destructive. For man cannot be both good and evil. What I mean by this is that he who is the standard for morality–for good–cannot also be he who wrecks this standard. He from whom rights are said to be derived cannot also be the one who poses the threat to the those very rights. Man cannot be the primary thing worth saving and the primary thing which jeopardizes that salvation.

Now, of course we may rightly assert that some human beings truly do evil and therefore are capable of harming others, but this is not the argument with which we are presented in defense of government. The argument is that human beings on the whole cannot fundamentally be trusted to exist outside of the power of coercive authority because human nature itself is depraved.

Human beings have the natural tendency toward evil, so it is argued. They are prone to it–not by choice, but because of naturally determined instinct. What this mean is that when presented with the option of good or evil, human beings, absent any external arbitrating, force, will do evil. They must…because they are driven in such an unfettered circumstance by their nature, and their nature is evil. Therefore, human beings must be governed by an outside force–a governing authority– in order to keep their natural evil in check, and to (hypocritically) ensure the existence and perpetuation of the human race by means of a rigid and regulated social apparatus that ultimately dictates all behavior by threatening its denizens with violence should they dare resist its self-proclaimed mandate to control man for the sake of man. And this is the metaphysical and ethical foundation upon which government stands. Go and see for yourself. Ask 20 people why we need government and I guarantee you that 20 of 20 will regurgitate, in some manner, the hypocritical philosophy I just explicated.

This foundational philosophy ironically and certainly inadvertently undermines the oft-trotted argument that government can exist of the people, for the people, and by the people. That is, it undermines–by its inherent and fatal contradiction–the assertion that people are the standard of the law which the government exists to uphold. If people are by nature evil, and this the root of their very being, then it simply cannot be argued that they may simultaneously represent the good which government must protect. On the contrary, if man is by nature evil, and can no more help doing evil when left to his own devices than he can help walking upright, then people in fact represent a singular threat to good. Because their nature is inexorable and absolute evil, they are the antithesis of good. And therefore, people must be controlled, not set free, by an external coercive authority. And this is exactly what they are, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You cannot claim to be free in an environment where all of your actions are ultimately a function of what someone else says you are allowed to do.

Further, the  idea that a government can exist in the interest of a humanity which is by nature evil is to assert that the government is a proponent of evil. This, however, is never the argument for government, because though true, it wrecks the benevolent facade of coercive authority. On the contrary, the argument is always that government exists for good, and that without government, man’s evil nature will reign supreme. And what this means is that it is not man, but the government which is actually the standard of good. The people are not the standard. The people are not that from which moral “rights” are derived. The government is. For the “rights of the people” are irrelevant absent government, because absent government man’s natural evil must subordinate them. The people, then, are not the source of moral dictums, but are the singular danger to them. They are not the value of the law. They are the enemy of it. So they must be controlled.

*

You cannot legitimately argue that man represents that from which natural moral rights are derived, and yet at the same time claim that he is evil and represents the singular existential threat to those rights, and therefore must be governed. This is to create in man a dichotomy of nature which contradicts and nullifies itself. If man is good, and this as a function of his very nature, then it is both irrational and counterproductive to establish an institution which exists to compel moral behavior by “authoritative” (legalized)  violence. For to insist that the naturally good man must be compelled to good through violence is to deny that man can do good on his own, and this denies that his nature is in fact good.  And if man is evil, and this a function of his nature, then man cannot possibly be compelled to good, for good is utterly exclusive of his being. To compel him to good is an impossible task. For man, being evil, perverts good, he does not cultivate it. It’s like adding poison to a meal and calling it seasoning. The only thing for which the naturally evil man is fit is destruction. In either case, government is utterly beside the point.

*

To attempt to use force to compel the naturally evil man into goodness, or to prevent the naturally good man from losing his goodness is like attempting to compel the frog out of his frog-ness, or to prevent the frog from losing his frog-ness. The frog is by nature absolutely a frog. No amount of violence and no amount of coercion can make him a rabbit. And since the frog is by nature a frog he can pose no threat to his own frog-ness. No centralized coercive authority is necessary to prevent, nor is it effective in preventing, the frog from losing his frog-ness.

The man who is good by nature has no use for government, because by definition he cannot lose his goodness. Nor can he pose a threat to his own natural goodness (i.e. left to himself, man who is “naturally” good when governed somehow becomes “naturally” evil when free of government). Because to claim that he may pose a threat to his own goodness is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally good. And the man who is evil by nature has no use for government, because he cannot be compelled to do good. Because to claim that the man who is evil by nature can be synthesized into good is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally evil. The naturally evil man is fit only for destruction. And if he is destroyed, then there is no one to govern, and thus there is no point in government.

*

And all of this leads us to another truth.

Man cannot be defined according to a moral nature. And of course once we no longer define him this way, there is no rational philosophical argument for the existence of government. Why? Because government is force, and force is violence, and violence nullifies choice. The man who cannot choose is a man who cannot express his own agency; and the man who cannot express his own agency cannot express SELF. Thus, he cannot BE himself in any relevant way.

You see, man is not a moral agent in the sense that morality defines him. Man is a rational agent. What this means that man is the epistemological frame of reference for all he knows; all he thinks; all he does. That is, man being himself, where “himself” is the agent who conceptualizes existence and thus makes it relevant and meaningful, is why man knows what he knows. Because he is SELF, and absolutely so, he is able to make distinctions between good and evil, and truth and fallacy. He is the arbiter–the reference–for knowledge.

Man’s nature is not a moral one, it is to be the reference for morality—for good and evil; truth and fallacy.  HE defines and applies these things. Therefore, it is HE who governs them, not the other way around (the other way around being to make man subordinate to the very ideas and concepts which are meaningless and useless without him). For what is Truth unless it is true TO AND FOR MAN? And what is goodness unless it is good TO AND FOR MAN?

These things are worthless. They are nothing. They are non-existent.

It is man who serves as the epistemological and moral standard for all of the reality in which he exists. Man cannot rationally or productively be subordinated to a legal moral standard that derives the entirety of its value and relevancy and meaning from him. Man cannot serve moral standards, moral standards must serve him. Man does not serve truth. Truth serves him.  To erect a set of rules for man to follow and by this claim he is good is to strip man from his rightful place as the only rational moral and epistemological reference for all of truth and goodness. And once this happens, truth and goodness have no meaning…and so the rules are pointless. Rules to which man is subordinated by violence are ultimately his destruction, not his salvation.

🍀

Because of Man’s Moral and Intellectual Agency, Need and Want are Corollaries

It is impossible to separate need from desire. That is, it is impossible to separate one’s needs from one’s idea of how these needs can be most satisfyingly met for oneself. Thus, to strip a man of the freedom to act as he so desires in pursuit of his own needs (i.e. to live his life as he sees fit according to his own existential reference) is to in fact make it impossible for his needs to be met…because “he”, the individual, has been removed from the equation. If a man may not choose his food, his shelter, his clothing, then these things must become death to him. They are a mark of his oppression, not the givers of life or vitality; they are a festoon of the tyranny which murders him.

🍀