Category Archives: Violence

You Vote Not for a Candidate, You Accept the Rule of the State: Voting, and why it is NOT Choice (Part 2)

Authority, forced compliance, government, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

“Obedience to a ruling authority is not, by definition, a choice.  Thus, the only way one can legitimately choose government–to freely and democratically elect it–is if it has no authority over him or her.  The problem with this is that absent authority government is not government. For what is government absent authority?  And what is authority absent the right to use violence to compel behavior? The answer:  It is nothing.  And to some, unfortunately, this is mere paradox; and this assuming people think of it at all, which for the most part they do not.  But to the truth it is the contradiction which makes the smallest government the largest, and the most compassionate benefactor the most monstrous tyrant ”

-Me

*

For now, I will more or less focus on the idea of mandatory voting–government enforced voting, much like government enforced healthcare. But understand that whether voting is mandatory or not does not change the fact that voting in either case is not a legitimate choice.  To be forced to choose or to force those who did not choose a certain way, or at all, to accept the outcome of a choice is NOT choice.  As I said in part one of this series, once force is injected as a means to compel others into the  outcome of a choice, which is functionally the same thing as forcing them to make a choice in the first place, then there is no such thing as choice.  Choice is a function of will, and force is the rejection of the will–that is, force is the explicit or implicit admission that will is irrelevant. Force and choice are mutually exclusive.  They cannot be synthesized into a single context.  One cannot be free to choose if he must choose, nor free to accept what he must accept.  That shit just doesn’t compute.

*

If I am forced to choose between A or B (or C, or D, etc.) then obviously choice is utterly besides the point. That is, to declare that I have no choice but to make a choice is a blatant contradiction in terms, and frankly I’m surprised that the idea of mandatory voting gets any traction at all, anywhere, based on this fact alone.  How “choose or get punished” gets translated into “free and democratic elections” defies my suspension of disbelief.  Then again, when the underlying metaphysic which dominates humanity is “man must be governed  because he is so naturally wicked and stupid”, I suppose its not hard to understand after all.

So, the logic goes: I am forced to accept either A or B–and yes, C or D or E, but for simplicity’s sake let’s just say A or B…so I am forced to accept A or B, of a “free” choice, that I am forced to make.

Hmm…something smells juuuuust a little off here.

The fact that a choice–in this case a vote–between A or B which you are forced to make is purely an imposter of choice is starkly exemplified by the forced acceptance of A or B by those who don’t make the choice at all, as in the United States, where voting for public “servants” is not (yet) compulsory.  But, as I said in the beginning of this article, and in the previous article in this series, the distinction between being forced to vote and accepting the outcome of the vote, as in Australia (I think), being not forced to vote but to be forced to accept the outcome of the vote, as in the United States, is a meaningless and fundamentally redundant distinction.  The truth is that those who vote have exercised no more real choice for their officials than those who, like myself, recognize the futility of the whole spectacle and avoid it completely.  And this I will address more thoroughly and specifically in a latter article.

So, again, a “choice” you are forced to make and which obligates you to an outcome you are forced to obey is not, by definition choice.

To be continued…

Why You Should and Should Not Debate the Collectivist

Authority, forced compliance, individualism vs collectivism, Violence, Voluntarism, , , ,

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

Epistemology, Ethics, forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, Violence, Voluntarism, , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

🍀

Forgiveness Cannot be Removed From the Exculpation of Wrong

Epistemology, Ethics, Violence, , ,

If we divorce forgiveness from exculpation, then the repentance of the wrongdoer is unnecessary. But if we divorce forgiveness from exculpation, then what exactly is forgiveness? If not forgiveness, then what is concept which describes the idea that we will no longer hold against someone an evil?

Think awhile. I’ll wait.

And if we say we will no longer hold an evil against someone who actively promotes it and refuses to reject it, then how are we not excusing it and thus tacitly promoting it ourselves? And how exactly does this help the emotionally or physically traumatized deal with their pain? How does calling evil good help victims of evil to even define the problem in the first place? 

I submit that the very concept which is forgiveness demands that it be directed to someone. Which is why it’s contractual, not psychological. Forgiveness not directed to another person or persons to me is meaningless. Obviously we cannot direct it to ourselves. If we are the innocent victims, then there is nothing of which we need to be forgiven. And if we extend it to another who rejects it then what exactly can be done with it?

Forgiveness as a bromide to sooth our emotional pain doesn’t seem consistent with its definition. Of course, I may choose to not allow another’s offense(s) to affect me either emotionally or physically or both (and there are many psychological/spiritual strategies for this) but I cannot forgive an evil act or idea that is still being actively perpetuated without tacitly excusing it. This is a bastardization of forgiveness by all rational definitions of the concept, including the Biblical one, and this makes it satanic.

Another false assertion/assumption is the idea that all “negative” emotions are somehow bad…are counter-productive. Nothing could be less true. Directing pain and anger towards an unrepentant abuser, for example, is extremely effective in motivating people to avoid the abuser and to seek justice for both themselves and other victims. It is not a desire for revenge–as the lie often goes–it is a means of self-preservation and the eradication of evil. Perpetual evil-doers–psychopaths, narcissists, and other vile sundry abusers–absolutely love the idea of forgiveness absent their repentance. Because it allows them to continue to sin without fear of reprisal and shifts the focus from their wickedness to the victim’s “bitterness”.

Reject this false forgiveness and at the very least we resist evil, reject the devil, defang lies, heap judgment upon the wicked, and rescue the innocent from the gaslighting of their oppressors.

Why Choice is Preclude by the Forced Compliance to the Outcome of the Choice

forced compliance, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

If the consequence of losing the vote for those who prefer option B is the forced compliance to option A, then there is no option B, since B merely amounts to A, via force. Further, there is no actual option A, either, since  compliance with A will be forced, which makes A non-optional. 

Why a Political Candidate Asking For Your Vote is an Exercise in Logical Fallacy

Authority, government, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

A person cannot ask an individual (such as you or me) to vote for them for a position of authority (rulership) over a given collective (e.g. the “People”, the “Nation”) because:

1. Individuals are not collectives, they are not groups. What is good for the group (e.g. “common good”) can never simultaneously be good for the individual. Because the definition of “good” is utterly dependent on which metaphysical paradigm you are using:

a. The group as a direct function of the individual–which is rationally consistent and makes ALL interactions within the group voluntary and mutually beneficial, because the individual is recognized as the moral and epistemological Standard.

Or b. The individual is a direct function of the group–which is rationally inconsistent, and is the premise upon which ALL authority/submission  models, like governments, are based. Individual will is subordinated to the group (again, the “common good”); and this always requires force because it renders individual will, and thus individual thought–which is in fact the moral and epistemological frame of reference all people necessarily possess–irrelevant. This nullification of individual will makes individual choice moot, which makes it necessary and incumbent upon the Authority (e.g. the State) to use force (violence and threats) to compel moral behavior…where again morality is defined according to the group (the good of the group, or again, common good); and where the “group” is necessarily defined by those who force the compliance of individual behavior to its promotion.

Why?

Because individuals cannot define it, because their minds and wills are antithetical to the group metaphysic (the individual as a function of the group). Thus, those in charge of forcing individual compliance to the group become those who define the group…essentially by default.

2. Force and Ideas are mutually exclusive. If an idea is to be implemented by threats and violence, then the idea itself–more specifically, its rationale (that which makes it true, and thus good, and thus efficacious)–is completely beside the point. Convincing someone of the efficacy and logic of your idea is irrelevant when your ultimate goal is to occupy a position of power by which you will give them no choice as to whether or not to comply with it. And this exclusiveness between force and ideas means that no candidate–no would-be agent of State FORCE– can give you an actual reason to vote for him. For the office he seeks denies the relevancy or even the possibility of your ability to understand and choose right and good things. And this being the case, how can this would-be agent of State force make a plea for your vote where he offers you an idea, which involves a rationale, which rests upon on the assumption that you can in fact understand and choose right and good things?

The answer? He cannot. It’s a contradiction. And there is no contradiction which can ever  be effectively applied. Running for public office is about deception in order to acquire votes, and this to attain the power to do nothing more than receive a specious legal pass for doing violence, even for the most well-intentioned politician.

Force and Ideas are Entirely Incompatible

Authority, Ethics, government, individualism vs collectivism, reason, Violence, Voluntarism, , , , ,

Your intellectual and/or moral agreement with an idea is entirely irrelevant if those who are not in agreement are forced to submit to it. Once force is used to implement an idea, the idea no longer matters. Force becomes the sole point and purpose, and death becomes the sole outcome. This is axiomatic. Force nullifies choice; and choice–between good and bad, and truth and falsehood, for instance–is the product of conceptualization, which is the root and efficacy of thought. And ideas are a function of thinking.

And thinking is how man defines Self, via his powers of conceptualization. And the definition of Self necessarily implies the relevancy and purpose of Self, which is thus the relevancy and purpose of the existence of the Self.

Therefore, use force, destroy ideas, which destroys the Self; that is, Humankind.

🍀

 

The Ability of Men to Communicate Means that Force Must Mean Tyranny

Authority, reason, Violence, Voluntarism, ,

If you intend to force your opponent to comply with your idea, you don’t actually need the idea, all you need is force.

You see, having an idea is fundamentally an appeal to reason–i.e. this is true because of this rationale, which also must be true because of this premise…etcetera, etcetera. And reason is a function of concepts men use in order to communicate with one another. Communication (or more precisely, the ability to communicate) then is proof that all men possess an equal and singular frame of reference by which communication is made relevant and efficacious: One’s Self. I. The I Am inside of each human being.

Therefore, to force men to comply with ideas is a contradiction in terms which inevitably turns rulers (those tasked with forcing compliance) into brainless killers, and the ruled into trenches full of ashes.

Aphorisms: On the underlying fallacy of governments

Aphorisms, Authority, government, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

Apologetics for government begins with the right of the good man to be protected from the avarice of the evil. From this we can directly extrapolate the following equation:

The right of the virtuous to be protected from the non-virtuous = the vast majority of men shall be subject to the authority–that is, the coercive violent force–of a tiny minority of men.

This is a logical fallacy.

*

To protect virtue by compelling all men through violence entirely wrecks virtue by nullifying moral and intellectual agency and is a contradiction in terms.

Which is why all governments are simply degrees of tyranny.