Category Archives: Voluntarism

America’s Unfortunate Legacy: Why the United States is just another nation in decline

The most destructive thing American has perpetrated upon the world has nothing to do with the physical.  It’s an intellectual wound that has been inflicted.  Worse than any war, scandal, or coup d’etat is the legacy of America’s political philosophy.  And if it seems as though I am speaking of an America with her grand and halcyon days behind her, it’s because…well, I am.  And they are.  Of course they are.  The candle has burned down to a nub; the hour glass must soon be turned over.  Between the near 30 trillion dollars in debt and the trillions more in unfunded and un-payable liabilities, the hordes of third-world foreigners both legal and illegal rushing headlong for her borders, with millions upon millions of them already here and feeding off the dwindling supply of tax cattle (i.e. the middle class), the almost unfathomable grand scale of abortion rates and single motherhood, both of these decimating without a hint of mercy Amercia’s future…yes, between all of this and much, much more, America is now experiencing at the very least the first of many death throes.  She is wheezing…and soon shall be but a corpse.  And this, my friends, is mere evolution.  It’s not revolution.  It’s not avoidable.  It’s not anyone’s specific fault…Republicans or Democrats or enemies within or without…not specifically.  Those groups are mere characters in the passion play that is the United States, whose end was written with the writing of the beginning.  The premise of a nation is the Authority of the State, and that premise WILL find its conclusion.  It’s unavoidable.  As sure as night follows day there is no stopping that which the beginning, now long since accomplished, NEEDS in order to BE the beginning in the first place: the end.  There is no recovering…no unringing of the bell.  All that remains is to see just what this end shall look like, and even this is of no fundamental importance.  Like all nations before her, America will fall as an expression of her rise.  How this manifests is mere semantics, as it were, in the grand scheme of history.  Will there be rivers of blood?  Unlikely.  Her capacity for military violence is far to great for that to be realistic, I submit.  No, I foresee a sad, quiet descent into obscurity and irrelevance, governed essentially by little more than a skeleton crew of corrupt plutocrats.  They will drunkenly sail her out into the cold, still waters of a blackened sea and then scuttle her with their greed and incompetence.  The barnacles on the boat—you and I—will drift along with the wreckage on the currents far below for who knows how long. It’s been over 65 years for the British. Their empire is a footnote; today their influence only exists vicariously through the United States. Sure they still carry the name “Great Britain”, but a name does not a great nation make.

Like all other great nations before her, America is on track to run her course in the mere span of ten generations. This is typical of great nations and empires…nothing unique or exceptional about it.  This is the lifespan of the species, and America is surely of the species.  She’s not an evolutionary breakthrough; not anathema; she’s not a new animal; she’s not from Krypton.  Yes, for all the talk of American exceptionalism, for all the appeal to her unique expressions of individual liberty, for all the self-approbation of a government for, of, and by the People, where rulers, like everyone else, are subject to the laws they protect and enforce (an impossible contraction…there is no rule of law without rulers; the idea that those who for ALL practical and revelant purposes ARE the law are also somehow obliged to it is rank nonsense)…yes, for all of this, America will but go as Ceasar’s Rome, Britain’s Kings and Queens, the Mongolia of the Khans, and all the others.

Why?

The answer one would think is obvious…for it’s the only answer possible:  The KIND of governement is irrelevant to the evolution of empires.  The philosophical premise which underwrites government in general—all governments, in fact—is what matters.  History has shown us, from rise to decline, regardless of how citizen-friendly a given government may or may not be, that the average life span of nations is about 250 years.  And America turns 243 in 2019.  And she is quite clearly near the end of her time, well into the age of decadence, her culture and money both essentially worthless.  In defense of my timeline, here are some figures courtesy of “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival” by Sir John Glubb, 1976, an excellent summary of the comparison of history’s nations, their rise and fall.

Assyria  859-612 BC, 247 years

Persia 538-330 BC, 208 years

Greece 331-100 BC, 231 years

Roman Republic 260-27 BC, 233 years

Roman Empire 27 BC-AD 180, 207 years

Arab Empire AD 634-880, 246 years

Mameluke Empire AD 1250-1517, 267 years

Ottoman Empire AD 1320-1570, 250 years

Spain AD 1500-1750, 250 years

Romanov Russia AD 1682-1916, 234 years

Britain AD 1700-1950, 250 years

Sir John also notes that the average life span of great nations and empires has not varied for 3000 years, and this I submit is due to the fact that there is no meaningful distinction, no important variable amongst nations, in their philosophical premise.  And it is the exact same premise which informs the American State.  So there is no reason to think that she should buck the trend.

When all is said and done, what will America have ultimately contributed to the great historical tome of world nations?  Her arts?  Her technological innovations?  Her moon landing? Her resistance to the spread of Communism?  Her military exploits?  Her cuisine?  Her intellectual fare and philosophical discourse—Noam Chomsky, Thomas Sowell, and Ayn Rand, for example?

Perhaps America’s most valuable contribution to the world and history will be her appeal to limited government…of, by, and for the People, with a poignant and purposeful emphasis on enlightenment principles like the natural rights of man and an implicit, if not explicit, affirmation of individualist metaphysics, where self-ownership and reliance becomes the most important and distinctive of all national virtues.

Well, if you said that last one, I would agree with you.  But not in the way you might think, or for the reasons you might think.  Additionally, I do not see this contribution as virtuous or noble; rather, I consider America’s legacy of a “limited” government by the people to be deceptive, at best.  I would not suggest that this deception is intentional, rather it is a function of the belief and acceptance that government can be limited and that it will stay that way.

America’s most important legacy is the popularization of the idea that a small, limited government is possible, sustainable, and benevolent, and that a representative structure is somehow a hedge against authoritarianism.  America is also responsible for popularizing the idea that the politicians do NOT constitute a ruling or aristocratic class, because ALL Americans are equally obligated to the Law.  These false ideas have led many to believe that America at its root is merely a cooperative…essentially founded and grounded in free association and value exchange between individuals, with classes of people, as far as the government is concerned, being entirely irrelevant, if not nonexistent.  All of this is arrant nonsense.  And through these ideals, America has committed another intellectual and moral error by proliferating the notion that to collectivize the Individual as “the People” is not actually collectivist.  In other words, that it is possible to synthesize two mutually exclusive metaphysical interpretations—reality as a function of individual existence as opposed to reality as a function of collective existence—by merely calling the collective as “the People”.  In turn, the implication is that morality and legality, two mutually exclusive ethical interpretations, may rationally be synthesized; that collective obedience to Law can mean the same thing as the individual making moral choices; that punishment for breaking the law is the equivalent of consequence for poor moral choice.

All of this is complete error, and yet by so aptly orchestrating such a political apparatus, accompanied by 150 years of industrial, cultural, and technological growth unprecedented in world history and almost single-handedly ushering mankind into an era of comfort-centered existence instead of subsistence-centered, people both inside and outside America have been led to believe that this nation somehow truly has something unique to offer in terms of how government should be structured; that the forceful coercion of humanity, as long as it is (somehow) limited, can create a truly free and prosperous society.  Which is in fact impossible, due to the implict reality that government authority is necessarily ABSOLUTE, because that is its nature.  One can no more limit the authority of the State than one can limit the tree-ness of a tree or the the frog-ness of a frog.  Government IS authority. Government absent absolute Authority is not government.  Period.  But by thinking that government can be stripped of its fundamental metaphysical principle which demands that it represent the practical manifestation of the absolute right of the Collective Ideal to compel the submission of individuals into it, I fear that the evolution of man from a coerced species to a free species has been set back by perhaps hundreds of years.  Thanks to America, I submit that humanity has been significantly stunted in its moral and rational duty to evolve socially beyond the immensely destructive cycle of rising and falling nation-states and into the bliss of pure peace through categorical voluntarism and a stateless existence.

*

America has been quite successful in obscuring the truth that there is no such thing as a small government.  Likewise, though, it should be mentioned that there is no such thing as a large government, either.  For both “large” and “small” are fundamentally meaningless qualifiers.  There is no large government nor small government nor tyrannical government nor free governement nor representative government nor hierarchical government…there is only GOVERNMENT.  Government by nature—that is, according to the metaphysical principles from which and by which government is established—is necessarily all-encompassing, encapsulating every facet of man’s existence with either explicit or implicit supreme authority.  In other words, government, by its natural purpose and implied right to force man’s behavior in service to the Collective Ideal which represents reality IDEALLY, becomes, as far as man is concerned, reality itself.

The chief metaphysical principle upon which government is based is one we all understand, even if we have never put it into words as such: that man, himself, left to his own volition and choice, absent a coercive external authority wielding supreme violent power, is utterly  insufficient to his own existence.  In other words, if men are left alone to do things according to their own will, they will destroy themselves.  Man’s nature makes it thus that he cannot LIVE unless government is established.

*

Government is authority and authority is FORCE; and force, because it, by (political) definition subordinates man’s will and therefore his behavior as a function of his own choice, renders man’s very mind moot, making individual understanding of reality ultimately irrelevant, which as a consequence leading to the eventual collapse of nations, makes man himself irrelevant.  Man, absent his ability to interpret reality from his own individual existential frame of reference (according to reason, not the subjective relativism which defines collectivist epistemology) has no identity.  And with no identity, man is no longer definable and efficacious to reality; and this is why government always, always, always wrecks the societies it supposedly exists to serve.

Absent man’s individual mind we lose reason.  Conceptualization itself and concepts themselves serve the “reality” of State power.  Force, then, supplants reason…or, it could be said, force becomes “new reason”.  It becomes the “truth”, the “right and the proper” (the ethics of legality (force) in place of the ethics of morality (choice)); it becomes the sum and substance of political action and political discourse; it is how men are taught pfundamentally to socialize with each other…individual sacrifice becomes the grandest of virtues—children grow up understanding that it is their existential duty to form and/or belong to groups and devote themselves to the promotion of their particular tribe or team or gang or club or business or any other collective that happens to float one’s boat, looking at rival groups as a threat to be pushed away, rather than as individuals with which to cooperate.  Force becomes the reason to live and the reason to die.  Force is everywhere, from the determinist laws of physics/nature to the compulsory commands of God, and the supreme expression of all of it is the State.  Or we could look at it this way:  the Laws of Nature and/or God and the Laws of the State become man’s bifurcated existence.  The former is the context, while the latter is the practical application.

By undermining man’s will, understanding, and choice, Authority makes morality, which is dependent on all three, with choice being the most obvious, impossible.  Morality is only relevant in the context of will, and eliminating will from the fundamental ethical framework by subordinating it to the force of Authority…that is, demanding obedience instead of cooperation as THE PRIMARY MEANS of achieving ethical outcomes, makes ALL of man’s behavior as far as the State is concerned DICTATED, not chosen. And this is precisely how all governments supplant moral ethics with legal ethics.  Their very nature is rooted in Authority—government is not government unless it has Authority to compel behavior by FORCE, and the argument for the ethical legitimacy of this force is the LAW.  Instead of individual choice being exercised for the good of one’s Self (and this in no way implies ethical relativism…no rational moral ethics can affirm the morality of one’s own Self whilst rejecting the morality of one’s neighbor) man’s ethical obligation is OBEDIENCE to the Law, which functionally means obedience to the State. For without Authority, there is no law. This is axiomatic.

And so I say again that there is no such thing as small government, or large government…no specific KIND of government at all which is ultimately relevant.  There is only government.  The point of government is to compel man against his will.  Man is a willful being…will is the cornerstone of man’s identity.  It is absolute.  It cannot be parsed.  You cannot, say, have 75% free will and 25% compelled behavior.  Government implies categorical submission of the will.  Period.  If the government happens to not specifically dictate a given behavior, it doesn’t mean that that behavior is free.  The implicit reality in this case is that such behavior is merely ALLOWED.  And being allowed to do something is not the equivalent of having the freedom to do something.

*

Government is not and cannot be representative of the individual, because its nature and purpose is to suppress and supplant individual will.  Government is representative of the Collective Ideal, and it exists as the practical incarnation of this Ideal.  The Collective Ideal thus is by definition incompatible with the individual at root (at the primary level of metaphysics), and thus the individual must necessarily be subordinated and ultimately sacrificed to it.  To oversee and compel this sacrifice is at root the ONLY real and relevant function of government, period.  And understand that the destruction of the individual by the State is most often not consciously inflicted by the ruling class.  It isn’t that the State is full of pernicious fat politicians rubbing their greasy hands together and fiendishly devising new ways of mass murdering individuals, per se.  I mean, yes, some rulers do spend time consciously conjuring up new and exciting ways to massacre the populace in service to their power and wealth, but understand that at the level of government it isn’t actually PERSONAL.  The government ALWAYS represents a Collective Ideal…even if that Ideal is simply “My Power” as in the case of some Stalinesque autocracy.  A Collective Ideal is a root simply an interpretation of reality that obligates ALL individuals to be subordinate to it…to be SACRIFICED to it.  It requires the COLLECTIVE destruction of humanity in the interest of an Ideal that represents the ethical and epistemological reference for reality OUTSIDE of the individual.  The destruction of human beings then from the point of view of the State is not actually individual-centered or focused.  It is not pointed and acute in that sense.  Collectivism, being metaphysically exclusive of Individualism, doesn’t consider the Individaul to actually EXIST in the first place.  The destruction of the individual thus is merely a necessary consequence of the existence of the State, which is mutually exclusive, ultimately, to the existence of the individual; the reality of the State is necessarily INCOMPATIBLE with the reality of the Indivdual.  The two interpretations of reality cannot be synthesized.  And as government is Force qua Force, EVERYONE is to be annihilated in some form or other by mere virtue of its establishment.  Enough people then are eventually murdererd or rendered impotent to the point where the State is not longer viable as an authority because there is no one left over which to rule, and concomitantly it will have squandered enough resources to the point where it is no longer able to practically wield authority.  And it is THIS common denominator—the necessary rejection of the existence of the individual via a collectivist and authoritarian interpretation of reality—which is the root of why all nations and empires rise and fall, in relatively the same number of generations, and in almost the exact same evolutionary stages.

The uniquely American aspect of the philosophy of government is the contradiction that declares that the Collective Ideal known as “We the People”, or simply “the People”, is somehow in service to the Indivudal.  But of course the Individual, unable to possess any existential value to collective, because he is a function of a mutually exclusive interpretation of reality, is nothing.  And thus, even if the government wanted to serve the indiivudal, it could articulate no actual INDIVIDUAL NEEDS for which it could provide.  Because, again, it does not view humanity as a collection of individuals, but as a COLLECTIVE…that is, a Collective qua Collective. The presence of the State then guarantees the destruction of individuals, even if the Ideal the State serves is said to be INDIVIDUAL life, liberty, and happiness.

It makes no difference what the Collectivist Ideal is called…it’s merely window dressing…semantics.  Superficial.  Fundamentally irrelevant.  Authority and Force is all that the State ever represents and manifests in practicality, in every context and in every time.  Whether we call the Ideal the People, or the Nation, or the Race, or the Church, or the Proletariat, or the Individual, or the Fuzzy Unicorn, Authority is all that matters and Force is all that is real.  The formation of government ultimately demands the destruction of the Individual in favor of the Collectivist Ideal by appeals to Authority and through the application of force.  It is not about reason, or morality, or honor, or chivalry, or virtue, or patriotism, or principle, or purpose, or destiny, or love, or equity, or charity, or equality, or rights, or life, or happiness, or liberty, or prosperity, or pride, or God.  It is about Authority and Force; Force and Authority.  It is about the destruction of meaning by relegating the individual to existential irrelevancy, impotence, and illusion.

*

Government, of any kind and in any place or time, metaphysically implies absolute Authority…that is, the right to own reality, itself.  In this sense one may consider government fundamentally solipsistic.  All pretense of individual rights and liberty are just that…pretense.  All of the freedoms one might suppose American’s enjoy, or at least enjoyed in greater measure during the more libertarian halcyon days of the republic’s rise, prior to the introduction of federal reserve and the income tax, for example, are merely an expression of the State’s power.  Under the auspices of governement authority, ALL behavior is at root merely a function of what the State happens to allow or demand at any given moment.  Will and choice is mere perception…there is no actual substance to these things.  Under a legal ethic (the Law) they have no functional meaning.  The ethical demand is obedience, and the ethical means is force, and the ethical hedge is death…meaning that the State has the natural right to destroy those who ultimately fail to comply with their legal obligation to obey.  But since obedience is a metaphysical rejection at root of man’s will and thus his ability to choose (making the claim that one can “choose to obey” a contradiction in terms), the Law ultimately destroys humanity as opposed to promoting it, because man, by simply BEING HIMSELF (an Individual) is EXISTENTIALLY and thus PERPETUALLY in violation of the Law. So, whether the law is used by “honest” autocrats to force collective compliance at the openly-admitted expense of all Individual considerations, like personal wants and wishes, property and ambitions, or by dishonest and/or ignorant rulers who claim to wield the Law  in service to Individual life and liberty, the outcome is the same.  Because in both contexts, and in ANY manifestation of governments, the law demands the EXACT same thing from man: that he reject his own will in submission to the Collectivist Ideal asserted by the State.  But since man cannot possibly do this, because he cannot choose to reject his own choice, man as an Individual is eradicated, either physically or psychologically, or by the categorical restriction of his self-ownership and self-expression.  That is, if man cannot fundamentally own anything, even his own body, because ALL belongs to the State, explicitly or implicitly, then he for all practical intents and purposes, is dead.  And the nation collapses, because there is no one and nothing left to rule.

So simply because the State happens to allow you to do this or that, does not mean you are FREE to do this or that.  Implicit permission is needed from the State to do anything…this is the very point of government authority.  Your very existence continues only at the pleasure of the Authority; this is hardly freedom.  Expressions of the Self do not necessarily equal the freedom of the Self.  Not at all.  Under government, your “willful” self-expression is ironically just a manifestation of the State’s right to compel and control you.

*

SUMMARY

Philosophically, and thus fundamentally (that is, beyond the superficial aethestetic distinctions of time and place), all nations do the same thing.  They begin, rise, and fall in essentially the same amount of time, all experiencing essentially the same stages of evolution.  But why must they fall?  Why must they not be perpetual?  The answer is found in the natural collectivist philosophical principles which underwrite government.  Collectivism is metaphysically exclusive of individual will.  It is purely, in any and all forms, utterly about the Collectivist Ideal.  And the implementation of an Ideal, which is entirely abstract in its essence, and therefore OUTSIDE the individual, requires force, not choice, as THE means by which the Ideal is realized.  Force then is the Authority, and the Authority is the State…the political ruling class is the practical incarnation of the Ideal to be inflicted upon the world.

The State, being Force incarnate, is exclusive of human reason.  But since reason—the non-contradictory combination and application of concepts to form ideas unto language—is how man defines and organizes his environment (how he devises his notion of Reality) the exclusion of reason is necessarily and fundamentally destructive to man.  And once enough men have been physically, emotionally, psychologically, and/or spiritually corrupted and/or demolished by the innate authoritarianism of government, the nation inevitably falls.  Because it no longer functionally wields authority OVER anyone, and thus does not possess enough resources to rule, it is no longer a practical authority.  And since the State IS the nation, and the State is Authority, the State, absent enough people and resources to rule, is no longer existent, for all intents and purposes.  As the “State” then wallows in impotency and corresponding incompetence, it loses its grip on its fabricated reality.  New men then rise and take power, from within or without, with or without overt violence, installing a new government entirely or perhaps reanimating the corpse of the old one with a new personality, keeping the name, but asserting what functionally amounts to a new Ideology.  For what its worth, I suspect this is what is currently happening to America.  We use the “liberties” and “rights” of our Constitution as a prop…a convenient window dressing, maintaining the appearance of old virtues for political purposes, but the Constitution is little more than a husk at this point.  Or a death mask.

*

America is and shall be no exception to the outcome of the metaphysics implicit in her government.  And yet in the face of arrant evidence that it cannot possibly be so (unmanageable debt, unfathomable abortion rates, rampant single-motherhood, rank cultural hedonism, child abuse, unfettered third-world immigration, open/shameless political corruption, politicizing the media into a propaganda ministry, etcetera, etcetera), many Americans continue to think and speak of their nation as exceptional.  But the only thing exceptional about any ruled people is that they continue to persist in the seemingly endless cycle of the rise and fall of nations, with an unshakeable acceptance of the spectacularly ironic idea that government is infinitely necessary to human existence.  And the fact that they continue to persist in such a belief even in the face of plentiful current and historical evidence to the contrary, is something exceptional to behold, indeed.  That humanity on the relative whole perpetually refuses to question the philosophical rationality and legitimacy of government is, in the realm of intellectual and moral error, an unquestionably exceptional brand of disaster.  It is a constant recycling and reliving of the Matrix…saviors rise to the cries of “freedom” and “truth” and “justice” and “progress”, based upon whatever collective ideal happens to form the context for these palliative virtues at the moment, only to have freedom et. al. inevitably undermined by an emphatic and hypocritical devotion to State Authority, if not in name then at the very least in principle.  Even those who say they oppose a given state on the grounds that it is or has become too oppressive simply appeal to either a new state altogether, or a reimagining of the one in existence.  Almost no one ever seriously asserts that the State qua State IS the very Authoritarianism they oppose.  The collapse of the nation then in some form is inevitable as economic and moral chaos accompany the necessary and steady increase of government tyranny.  Then the cycle begins all over again.  And again.  And again.

In reality, the truly exceptional people I submit are those who finally unplug themselves from collectivist philosophy entirely, in all its forms, and begin to interpret reality according to a metaphysics which in no way does or can imply that humanity is in some form at root a function of a collectivist ideal or process, whether political, religious, or natural.  Only when the absolute and categorical right of the individual to own himself has been acccepted by enough people will—for the first time in history on a meaningful scale—humanity commit itself to genuine rationally consistent reason and morality.  Only then will we escape the disaster of national rise, fall, rinse, repeat.

END

Advertisements

The Inherent Authoritarianism of the United States Pledge of Allegiance

The United States Pledge of Allegiance presumes a collectivist metaphysic, and this is because it affirms an inherent collectivist ideal—the “people” as the “nation”, as if what is naturally singular (the Individual…the Person) can be made a “singular collective”, which is a contradiction in terms, in addition to being an arrant RATIONAL contradiction.  Thus, the Pledge is inherently tyrannical.  And this is pretty disturbing when we consider how utterly canonical it has become in United States society and in our cultural tradition.

Think about it for a moment…I’m not sure it is possible to devise a way to more precisely and effortlessly reject the ostensible individualist metaphysical foundation of a nation built for, by, and of the People, and replace it with a vapid, capricious collectivist one.

”I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…”

Allegiance.

Literally speaking, and in the strictest sense of the word “allegiance” means to renounce your own will in exchange for that of a master…to give or sell yourself to the whims of another who presumes to know, or presumes he has a RIGHT to know, more about your needs and wishes than you do.  And since the context is the usurpation of your own determination of your needs and wishes, we are talking about authority—authority being the practice of one person (or a few people) deciding just what another person (or other persons) shall do and shall possess.  Yet your will and your exercise thereof in service to what you need and want is inexorably bound to your very singular consciousness.  That is, your absolute sense of your own Self, which is, in fact, the Self which makes you an individual and not fundamentally a collection of body parts and cells and atoms and molecules, is utterly corollary to your agency…your will, and the exercise thereof.  Because of this, your needs and wants cannot actually be serviced by a nation (or a flag…the nation’s symbol…same difference) to which you pledge allegiance, because by rejecting the OWNERSHIP of yourself—that is, your will and the right to determine your own needs and desires—you have rejected YOURSELF ENTIRELY.  You cannot outsource your will to that to which you swear allegiance and yet somehow retain ownership of yourself, both as a body and as a soul (“soul” meaning You qua You—the Self of you).  By uttering the Pledge then, you do nothing honorable.  You willingly reject your very existence and give it to the State on a silver platter…without protest, without grudge, without fight, without condition, and without morals, reason, or truth.  In a few trite lines of vapid patriotic nonsense you sell your individual soul to the devil’s collective: the political ruling elite.  With hand to breast and the recitation of a Godless spell you magically transform a government of, by, and for the people into an infinite Slave Master of millions.

As for the ruling elite to whom you pledge allegiance…and yes, it is to these ruling politicians you pledge your allegiance, ultimately, not some ethereal notion like “Country”—for if you pledge allegiance to merely an abstraction like “the United States” then you have wasted your breath and your time and made yourself look even greater a fool because you do not realize that for any pledge of allegiance to mean anything some ONE will have to tell you just what that allegiance shall LOOK like when exercised practically.  And the “United States of America”, the abstract IDEAL, does not speak.  It’s politicians do.  The government IS the United States.  There is no practical application of the ideal “the nation” without its rulers who apply its abstract meaning practically, though the Law, as its incarnate.  Take away the government and there is no “United States”.  Take away those who enforce the Law which dictates individual behavior in service to the ideal ‘the United States”, and you take away the Law entirely.  For if there is no one to punish you for breaking the Law, then there is no Law.  This is axiomatic.  And if there is no Law then there is no nation.  And thus, you do not pledge allegiance to the United Sates of America, you pledge allegiance to politicians.

How is that for a punch in the face with cold, hard reality?

So again, as for the ruling elite to whom you pledge allegiance:

It is nothing but lip service at best—not to mention a contradiction—to suggest that one can reject the existential legitimacy of the individual by assuming the legal authority to compel his behavior through government violence, and yet also suggest that the individual’s needs and wishes can be serviced BY that government which CONTROLS and thus (at least) implicitly OWNS him.

The politician asks you to pledge to him your allegiance in return for protection, and material and emotional provision, as if that provision can go to you AFTER you have been rejected BY the politician through the collectivist metaphysical foundations of the State, and likewise you have rejected YOURSELF via the manipulative political bromide of the Pledge.  Once you have dismissed your right to self-ownership and agency you have dismissed your right to say what your needs and wishes are.  In other words, if the State owns you, thanks in part to you pledging yourSELF away to it, then whatever you think your provision is or should be, is in reality the STATE’S (the political ruling class’s) provision.  The State gives you what IT wants, not the other way around.  It does not and cannot give you what YOU want because YOU (You qua You—you the individual) don’t exist.

*

Without the individual, there are no individual needs and wishes, by definition.  And here then, notice the logical fallacy and complete absense of reason—not to mention the mockery it makes of nature—with respect to an individual pledging allegiance to the State…to an authority OUTSIDE of himself:

You cannot give away yourself ACCORDING to yourself.  You cannot choose to be ruled, which is what you do implicitly when you “freely” pledge your allegiance.  Your free will (a phrase which is basically redundant) is inexorably and inseparably bound to your SELF, and thus to abandon your will is LITERALLY to abandon your SELF…You qua You.  You cannot choose to be a slave, you see, because a context of human choice contradicts a context of human slavery at the basic existential root, not to menation the fact that the very semantics are incompatible; and thus when combined (“chosen slavery”) make nonsense.  “Chosen slavery” is an arrant, and I would think obvious, oxymoron.  To choose to become a slave is to reject that you EVER had a choice at all…an admission that your entire existence as a natural agent of volition is and has always been an illusion at best.  You cannot choose to be ruled because you cannot choose to have no choice; you cannot outsource to the ruling classes by a pledge that which NECESSARILY demands SELF ownership.  You cannot grant ownership to another that which only YOU can own:  your mind; your will; your LIFE; your SELF.

In our American culture we love to heap vast sums of gilded praise upon the vapid patriotic pretense of “allegiance”, and laud a citizen’s self-sacrifice to the abstraction of the “U.S.A.” as the most sublime and noble of all virtues (as though self-sacrifice isn’t an existential impossibility and a contradiction in terms since ALL one does is from and thus TO the Self).  The “sacrificing citizen” (or “what one can do for his country”…an arrantly Marxist phrase if there ever was one) is in reality, completely irrelevant and irrational.  Those with ALL the violent compelling power of the State—the rulers to whom we pledge our allegiance, whether we want to recognize that it is to them we pledge or not—are Authority; and because they are Authority they cannot and will not and do not sacrifice anything at all, let alone themselves…for all they can ever fundamentally do by virtue of their political position is promote the collectivist ideal of the “nation” at the EXPENSE of the individual, whether these politicians accept or are even aware of this or not.  It is those who do NOT hold positions of government power, explicit, or implicit (implicit in the case of, say, the corporate plutocrats who manipulate  government through wealth and threats to take it elsewhere) who ARE SACRIFICED.  And I say “are sacrificed” because, again, by pledging allegiance you are pledging your will to the ruling classes, and thus are conceding that you have no choice at all, of your own, at root, and thus cannot choose to sacrifice yourself, but rather sacrifice must be done TO you, FOR you.

In summary, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is to make the quintessential rational error, and quite frankly one of the the most obvious and primitive:  to reject oneself and one’s natural and endemic self-ownership in favor of a false collectivist ideal—e.g. the “Republic”  (“for which it stands”); the Nation; the “Race”; the “(Political) Party”; the “King”; the “Tribe”; the “Church”; the “Team”; the “(socioeconomic) Class”, etc.

The United States of America (i.e. the ruling classes; the government) should be pledging allegiance to YOU and to ME, not the other way around.  The only pledge anyone need make is to the rejection of ANY and ALL pretense of government tyranny, which certainly includes the Pledge of Allegiance.

END

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with your Life (PART 3)

The United States Constitution declares, under penalty of punishment via the most powerful and one of the most violent political ruling classes in the history of the world, that ALL citizens be granted the right of equal opportunity under the Law.  There is no LEGAL sanction in this entire nation given to anyone who wishes to marginalize, disadvantage, discriminate against, oppress, exploit, enslave, or annihilate another person when it comes to political representation, life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  No public university, business, bureau, department, or institution of any kind can disadvantage anyone; they cannot limit the ability of anyone to pursue their own desires and ambitions under the Law.  In addition, I submit that only the insane and/or the self-loathing private proprietor would discriminate in the practices of employee-hiring or customer service on the basis of some group identifier like race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc..  When it comes to private interpersonal value exchange, I can think of no typical collective attribute which can amount to any rational decrease in benefit.

But the Constitution assumes an Individualist metaphysic (albeit insufficiently by virtue of the fact that it legitimizes government, which is necessarily collectivist at root), and THAT, if one’s metaphysic is Collectivist, makes it entirely useless when it comes to guaranteeing “true equality”.  Therefore, because Individualism means that everyone gets to play the game, and everyone starts at the same place and with the same number of cards.  Collectivism means that the governement PUTS everyone in the same place and GIVES everyone the same number of cards…and it further means that that IS the game, period.  Because there can be no difference in outcome for any of the players, there IS NO game. There is nothing to do at all. Everyone STARTS at the place the government wants them to end, so there is nowhere else to go.  For the individual, this kind of existence is the equivalent of hell.

So, for all intents and purposes, the place everyone under collectivist ideology begins and ends is the grave, and the number of cards everyone eventually collects in the game is exactly zero.  Because eventually the ruling classes run out of people to rob.  Steal from the producers long enough, and they are simply unable to sustain production.  It is the elementary logic of cause and effect.

Collective/Collectivist “equality” has nothing to do with asserting the notion of all individuals possessing the very same root moral existential value, but rather has everything to do with forcing all individuals to submit themselves to the Collective Ideal, where the foundational existential frame of reference for humanity is not the Individual (i.e. One’s Self), but the Group.  Those deemed antithetical to the Ideal because they do not and/or cannot possess the necessary group characteristic (e.g. race, political party affiliation, socio-economic class, religion, nationality, etc.) are scapegoated as the root of all that is evil, by nature, and the bane of and stumbling block to the Collectivist Utopia (for example, the bourgeoise in Marxist ideology is the scourge of the Working Class) and therefore are oppressed, exploited, and murdered.

The ideology of Political Correctness (PC) claims in essence to provide socioecopolitical protection for “minority” groups (i.e. the “disadvantaged”; the “marginalized”; the “underrepresented”) against the “majority” —and in the case of the U.S., “majority” means straight white males, whose oppressive nature as a class has compelled them to create a rival Collective Ideal (e.g. the Patriarchy), which represents an existential threat to these “minority” groups.  PC does not claim protection for the individual, fundamentally, because the needs of the individual are not considered…because the individual HIMSELF is not considered.  Political Correctness by logical necessity assumes a collectivist metaphysic.  It doesn’t care about the Indiviudal because there is, at root, no such thing.  There are only rival socioecopolitical classes, period.  To consider the Individual is to contradict Political Correctness at its very foundation.  According to PC, there is no such thing as a “minority” individual …there is either the “truth” of the COLLECTIVE minority, or the lie of the Individual. A black individual, according to PC metaphysics, is a contradiction in terms.

*

Remembering what I said in part one of this three-part article, what happens to individuals when they are stripped of their individual identity and collectivized is that they are destroyed.  Group identity does not protect indivuals from the destruction they shall reap under Collectivist metaphysics.  Therefore, PC ideology is not a hedge against ANY ONE’S exploitation, exploitation being the corollary to destruction.  Being black will not save you from the inherent authoritarian violence necessarily to be manifest by an organization like Black Lives Matter should this group ever acquire a monopoly or a large percentage of political power; just as being a member of the working class did not protect Soviet workers from Stalin’s fire squads and Siberian gulags; just as being a Cuban in Fidel Castro’s Marxist-Nationalist revolution did not serve as incentive enough to dissuade thousands of Cuban’s from to sailing to Florida on what amounted to bits of floating garbage and random scraps of driftwood.

It isn’t YOU, the Person, that the Collectivist ruling class—which exists as the physical and practical incarnation of the Ideal in order to wield its Authority to compel obedience—cares about, no matter what you are told in the propoganda and bromide which passes for purpose amongst the socialists in our midst.  It’s the Ideal…that is, the Abstraction—the fantasy of group-think philosophy—which matters.  It is the notion of Collective Perfection which exists only and ever in the transcendent ether of a “reality” beyond the Individaul…beyond YOU qua YOU.  What this means in practical reality is that it is ONLY the ruling class which profits from Collectivism (and this only temporarily, until the experiment inevitably collapses under the weight of its own rational and moral bankruptcy).  And this is because the Ideal has no relevance nor meaning absent those who assume the LEGAL right (those espousing the PC Ideal are always statists at root) to compel humanity—to sacrifice it to the Ideal (i.e. themselves).   An Ideal with no rulers is null and void in any empirical and relevant aspect.  It is a law with no law enforcement…a self-contradiction, self-nullifying, irrelevant, pointless clanging of cymbals.  Noise, nothing more.  And so the Authority—the rulling class—IS, for all relevant purposes, the Ideal, itself.  And the IDEAL is all that matters.  Not you; not me, no matter who we are, where we come from, what we think, or what we look like.

So to all of you who laud the strengthening storm of Political Correctness and its evil twin sister, Social Justice, because you believe that it will usher in your long-awaited political and social and economic salvation, with commandeered wealth and a nexus of succor and self-aggrandizing satisfaction…

I laught at you.  I pray for you.

END

You Want to Know the Real Problem of Evil? You Got It.

Now that we have—by illustrating the rank contradictions which make up its substrata of rationale—dispensed with the theological and logical fallacy of the “Problem of Evil” as presumed by Christian orthodoxy, we can talk about the real problem of evil.

But what do we mean by “evil”?  Well, first, we need a reference.  That is, in order to call something moral or immoral we must reference it to that which can rationally arbitrate ethical value.  Without such a reference, it’s impossible to ascribe a moral label.  So, what’s the reference? The only reference which is rationally consistent is the Individual. Now, please note that in this article I am not going to explicate ethics in detail at the philosophical primary level. You can find that elsewhere on this blog.

I thus define evil this way:

The willful action of one individual which violates another.

Think Old Testament.  Think Ten Commandments.  Stealing, hurting, killing, lying to yourself or others.

Now, there is a subsection of ethics which deals with “acts of nature”, so to speak.  Those incidents where the innocent are subjected to torment, neglect, and death that have nothing to do with the willful acts of other human beings.  Like natural disasters, accidents of poor judgment (e.g. getting lost in the wilderness at night and falling down a steep ravine), or even something like a bridge collapsing.  We can argue that these things are technically violations of human life, and thus may be described as evil.  But I don’t think they fall under the category of a “problem of evil”, unless you consider God the fundamental controller of everything and thus must implicate Him in some way.  But as I explained in my previous article on the subject, this is not really a problem, because it is not actually paradoxical. It’s a contradiction and thus a lie.  So, when we are talking evil, we’ll keep it simple…basic rational ethics a la the Ten Commandments.  Kiling, lying, stealing, and all their various forms (bullying, psychological abuse, manipulation or fraud, etc.). That’s basic rational ethics, and it need not be complicated.  What is complicated is dismantling the fraudulent ethics of irrational philosophies and other various hijacking of reason.  But true ethics is simple, and I would argue, innately understood by all of us as a function of our nature.  This innate understanding of goodness is corrupted by bad philosophies, and specifically bad metaphysics, not unlike those which underwrite governments.  All of them.  Which leads us to the main thesis of this article.

*

Why do people do evil?

Who are the greatest and most prolific and persistent culprits?

The answers to these questions most likely will surprise you, and I can tell you right now that the rest of this article won’t win me any friends, and will likely lose me some. Because the answer to the second question is: you.  And me, in the past.  And the why is this: because we think evil is good.

I must step carefully around this prickly subject. I am not trying to shame anyone.  I am not condemning you to fire and brimstone.  I am not ultimately imprecating the character of friends and family, or even of humanity in general.  I am not saying you ARE evil, because I know that that simply isn’t true.  This is an admonishment to a new thinking, not a condemnation of your soul.  I am aiming to help people to re-evaluate their root assumptions about he nature of man and reality, and to realize that those assumptions are the difference between our lives contributing, on the whole, to sublime morality or the utter abasement of God and the world.  Because no matter how good and reasonable and true and honorable we think we are, our root assumptions—and we all have them—define, ultimately and foundationally, our moral contribution to reality.  And that contribution is either evil or it is good, period.  The question begged, then, is this:  Can a person with evil assumptions who truly believes that these assumptions are good ultimately do good with their life?

I guess I should explain what I mean about “evil assumptions”.  What I mean is assumptions about the nature of man and his relationship to realty which nullifies man’s will, and demands him inadequate, by dint of no less than his very own birth, to existence, itself.  The philosophies in which this is done are varied and copious, and without any rival anywhere in the world I submit, but at root they all share the same theme:  Man is fundamentally controlled by some determinative force outside of himself, be it God, or natural law, or mathematics, or his own “sin nature”, or the Unknown, or evolution, or all of the above, and therefore his will—his sentience and agency—is, at the very foundation of his existential make-up, fraudulent.  Will is an illusion; choice is determined and thus a lie.  Man is incapable of being himself qua himself—there is no such thing.  And thus, for his own good, and to ensure his own real and true existence, his will must be censured, and he forced into “goodness”.  He must be forced to thrive because he cannot do it on his own.  Man speaks as if he is an individual, but this is a function of a root existential error, and his individuality is an illusion at best.  His reality is that he is collectively driven by a single Cause (God, Nature, some other Force), and thus his false sense of self must be oppressed so that his true self—his determined and collective self—can prosper.  He must be forced to thrive—forced into his proper collectivist role—because he simply cannot do it on his own.

*

People committing rank atrocities against their fellow man are easy to spot when the definition of evil is rational.  It is hard for the liar, or thief, or murderer to hide when the ethical context is clear.  They stick out like a dead fly in a glass of milk.  And thus, I don’t consider them, and whatever pathology drives them, be it physiological or behavioral or genetic or whatever, to be the real root of the problem of evil.  The liar lies, the killer kills, and the thief steals.  This is clear.  The real problem evil—of evil which is endemic and pervasive—my friends, is not the evil person, but rather the good one.  That is, real evil is found in the majority…the masses who wish to do good, to save and promote fellow man, but do so from a false assumption. The assumption is this: The only way to get men to behave morally is ultimately to grant a small group of people (or a single person) the power to compel human behavior by violence.

I’m talking, in essence, about government. And the fact that after thousands of years of state-sponsored mass murder, oppression, exploitation, slavery, torture, economic regression, and nepotism, we all still accept that the most moral form of humanity is that in which it is governed.  We accept that by eradicating morality, which destroys choice by forced compliance to legality, which is an entirely different ethic altogether, goodness can be brought about in the world.

It can’t.  It hasn’t.  It won’t.

What is the assumption which guides our moral code, almost to a person?  It is found in the answer to the question: Why government?  The answer is always the same, though in various semantic molds:  Without government, man is doomed.  Left to himself, man’s base natural instincts to oppression, exploitation, and murder will erupt and the earth will be a cauldron of misery…a hell, itself.  That man’s very inherent and natural ability to choose his own actions cannot be trusted.  And choice, dear readers, is the root of what makes a human being a human being.  Absent choice, there is no individual.  And thus, this concession to the necessity of government implies that man IS EVIL, ITSELF.  And that’s why government. That’s why human will must be replaced by obedience to law.

Of course, how the political elite get a pass on their own mendacity and natural depravity is a question that is alway punted into the cosmic abyss of grand Mystery.  The fact is, we are told, that our sense of One Self—of “I”—is by nature false, and our choice thus is the vehicle for our own destruction.  And therefore we must be ruled.  It is the only way to save us.  We must have ourselves forcefully denied so that humanity can survive.

And that is REAL evil.  That idea…right there.

So you shall never get to experience life out from under the unblinking eye of Authority, no matter how benevolent or special or God-ordained that authority is claimed to be.  The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Pax Romana…it’s force, force, force.  It’s the State, and it means law, and law is the eradication of choice by its nature, and this means the nullification of morality, which means that there is no longer any  consequence for actual evil…because evil becomes not that which violates the individual—YOU or ME—but which violates Law.  Because YOU and ME are a lie, we are told and believe.  So, you will never know what it means to be you, ultimately.  You will never know the freedom of You qua You.  You must always have an overlord, and a cage in which to put you, even though its borders be the size of a continent.  You may have a shadow of freedom, but you will never have it in the flesh.  You will never get to be the real You.  The Self is dead at birth.

And now, right now, you’re telling yourself that I’m a fool…a nut, a radical, a denier of reality, lost, or angry, or irrational, or all of it.  Perhaps you should no longer associate with me, you’re thinking. Perhaps you will unfriend me on Facebook…or perhaps you already have.  I’m a bad influence, a reprobate, a rejector of clear truth.  An arguer, a rebel, a non-compromiser, a denier of God’s sovereignty, a rejector of the empirical, unenlightened, unsaved, a know-it-all, arrogant, and without faith.

Of course we need government, you’re thinking.  Of course we can’t just let people do whatever they want!  That’s complete madness! The death of us all! Idiotic!

Nothing I can say will change your mind. Nothing I can do will cause you to question. I can show you the graves of the millions that government has slaughtered; the starving children ravaged by polical despots who are called the “savior of the people”, the “dear leader”, the “Fuhrer”.  I can show you internment camps and gas chambers and killing fields and nuclear craters and whole cities on fire and severed heads on poles on castle walls and bodies littering the colosseums and the crucifixion of Christ, and all of it a government program, and yet you shall reject the idea that government, and in particular its philosophical roots, might just be the source of the horror. No, in your eyes, I am forever the fool.

And that, my friends…is the problem of evil.

 

 

The Point of Law is to Eradicate Moral Consequence, Not Enforce it (PART THREE)

In the world today, collectivist metaphysics are a philosophical juggernaut, with virtually every school of thought, field of study, and religion in the world, including and perhaps especially the “hard sciences”, conceding these metaphysics as a priori, whether they are consciously aware of it or not.  Which, they usually are not because…well, who needs philosophy when you’ve got math, right?  Numbers beat reason every time.

Hmmm.  To that I’d say: numbers are units of infinity, nothing more.  So be careful.  It’s easy to replace truth with abstraction when the abstraction you’re working with is designed to be rendered an infinite number of ways.  Give me infinity to work with, and I can come up with anything…by definition.  And thus, for mathematics to be in any way reasonable and relevant on the level of arrant and object reality, we must hem them in by rational consistency.  That is, by truth. That is, by understanding what is rationally possible and what is not, and from this, what is actually good and what is actually not.  And truth is a function of philosophy.  Period.

Anyway…

By the collectivist metaphysical premises which underly practically all subjects it seems, and along with these subjects society at large, the denizens of society seek to eradicate the “illegitimate” and “invalid” moral consequences of an “illegitimate” ethic.  Which is to say, of morality, as opposed to legality.  And thus the metaphysic in which this ethic is rooted, the Individual (I, the Self) is marked for death, figuratively unto literally, by “the people” demanding that the government nullify moral consequence through the power of Law, which government wields alone, as the One, True Authority.

To put it much more bluntly, people who have conceded the collectivist ideals of all the “truths” upon which a collectivist society is based will appeal to the State to use its giant hammer of coercive monopolistic brut force to pound into a bloody mash the individual freedoms of everyone in response to the unwanted moral consequences brought about by the choices of the evil or irresponsible.  In a society ruled by Law, and not morality, everyone is a sinner.  Everyone is guilty for the sins of everyone else.  And this is because under Law, there are no individuals, and this due to the collectivist metaphysics which imply legal ethics.  Man as an individual is insufficient—morally, intellectually, existentially—and thus the failure of some men (criminals) is merely the reflection of the failure of all men; so how can the Law treat those who commit no crime as innocent?  All individuals are merely latent criminals, which is why the Law is declared necessary in the first place.  The innocents therefore are punished for the crimes of the guilty, and this is how we think justice is done and how humanity is protected.  By using the State to destroy the distinction between the good and the evil, the innocent and the guilty, the responsible and the deadbeat, the giver and the taker, the host and the parasite, we wreck the individual at the point of his very metaphyscial reality, and by this we think we can eliminate his curse—his natural ethical failure, due to the choices he makes as an individual.  We take guns away from the non-violent; fossil fuels away from good stewards; money away from the generous; tobacco and other “vices” away from the moderate; and force licenses to ply trades upon the honest and compassionate; and so on.  We do this thinking we are protecting the innocent public, while all we are really doing is punishing the innocent for being individuals.

It need not be said that this never, ever works in the long run.  Appeals to the Law as a panacea for social ills merely enlarges the State, which like a gravity well draws to it every sadist, narcissist, and greed-monger who has the means and intelligence to get there, and heaps exponential misery upon the nation, compounding the very moral atrocities it claims to alleviate.  Without a shred of irony this farce continues, day in and day out, election cycle after election cycle, and no one seems to notice.  It’s shocking.

To remediate unwanted moral consequences, we, the lemmings of collectivist ideology, appeal to government violence—the use of state force to compel obedience through death and threats of death—to fix and prevent the fallout of poor moral choices…to clean up the messes left by individuals who have committed specific immoral acts.  Instead of encouraging better choices through a saturation of society with rational philosophy, we, without a hint of irony, appeal to the monumentally immoral act of using violence to force the innocent to comply with legal regulations which are deemed a collective necessity due to the immoral actions of some. In short, we use the law to burden the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.  This is not only irrational, it is an object evil.

As I have said, this will never work because to apply legal solutions to moral problems denies the real and root truth of the individual.  The individual is truth, the collective is a lie, metaphysically speaking.  Which means, when we are talking about the fundamentals of human existence, the individual is that from which reality flows.

The Law seeks to regulate the choice out of reality by using regulation to compel obedience, which is the antipode of choice with respect to root ethics.  But choice is actual reality, because the individual, not the collective, is what is real.  The individual is concrete; the collective, abstract.  To attempt to subordinate the concrete to the abstract is at best hope over reason.  To attempt to solve ethical problems by destroying that by which ethics has any meaning in the first place—namely, the individual—is the mere substitution of soundness for madness.  And this only ever multiplies and compounds unwanted ethical consequences.  It sews misery among the populace, it doesn’t resolve it.  Further, the implimention of an irrational ethic like legality is, itself, patently unethical, because it is immoral.  And it shouldn’t have to be said that you cannot solve or prevent immorality by appealing to immorality.  Yet, this is precisely what the Law is.

Replacing morality with legality destroys and brings abject misery to humanity for the simple reason that collectivism is a lie by virtue of it being a metaphysical contradiction. That is, it defies reality.  And there is no power in the universe which can change reality.  This is because power is, itself, real, and therefore can only ever confirm reality.  Even if that confirmation comes in the form of a Roman cross, a guillotine, a killing field, a concentration camp, a gulag, mass starvation, or a mushroom cloud.

END PART THREE

The Point of Law is to Eradicate Moral Consequence, Not Enforce it (PART ONE)

Under a legal system reigns legal ethics. Legal ethics are exclusive of moral ethics because morality has to do with choice and legality has to do with obedience. Another way we could put it, so as not to completely nullify either concept within the framework of ethics, is this: obedience drives individual will under a system of legal ethics and will drives obedience under a system of moral ethics. Because of the root mutual exclusivity of these two ethical categories, morality has fundamentally no meaning nor relevancy to or within a legal system. That is, in a society governed by a political ruling class, which we call Government, or the State, this ruling class will necessarily appeal to the Law for its legitimacy of purpose and power. It exists to make sure everyone is acting ethically. All that is necessary is to convince the masses that legality is the best way to do this. Which isn’t difficult because it seems that humanity almost universally accepts the collectivist metaphysical premise: that the individual is a product of some greater collection of parts—the tribe or the nation or the race, for example—or some outside force of nature or of the divine; that the individual, as a function of something outside of him, is, in fact, an existential illusion, or a mystery, or a lie.

Since morality has no meaning nor relevancy under the auspices of government, because government is necessarily rooted in legality, then moral consequence likewise has no meaning.  Society is organized according to legality, and this enforced by government. In a framework like this, moral consequence then can have no place in the organization protocol. Society is to be ruled, and this makes it fundamentally subject to obedience, not to the choice of individuals living out a distinct and metaphysically singular existence. The point of the State is to eradicate the consequence of moral choice in order that perfect legal order can be established and realized, and by this, the perfect ethical utopia—perfect goodness—and this as the proof of the legitimacy and efficacy of government, which really means the legitimacy and efficacy of the ruling class, and this really means the manifestation of the zenith of power, which is absolute, which is the point of collectivism.  And this is why we see, as the nations wear on in their programmed and inevitable way, from rise to certain collapse, more and more reliance upon the law for the remediation and prevention of social woes, and less and less on individual choice and responsibility.

The reason the State gets bigger, up until the point the State no longer asks what its citizens want or think, is no mystery, and yet the amount of woe and teeth gnashing and shaking of fists at the heavens at every expression of government excess and increase by those of a more conservative or libertarian political bent belies the simplicity of what should be perfectly obvious. The reason the State gets bigger is because the people want it bigger. Period. To vote for government, because of the very nature of government and because of the metaphysical and eithical presumptions one must accept in order to accept the existence of government in the first place, is to tacitly or implicitly, at best, desire government to grow; to desire the reduction of individual choice and the increase in government control. You cannot affirm government (by voting, for example) whilst simultaneously demand it contradict itself by giving you more freedom and itself less authority.  That’s like getting a cat, buying it litter and cat food and cat toys and scratching posts and calling it Felix and then decrying the fact that it’s not a dog.

So, yes, the State gets bigger because the people want it bigger. And its not hard to see why people want this, and are so tempted by government, and why it seems to win every time when it comes down to choosing how society will be organized.  People WANT to be ruled MUCH more than they want to be free. It’s obvious, its arrant, and here’s why:

The existence of the State is a hedge against moral consequence, by the very fact that it supplants morality with legality. The bigger the State then, it is eventually assumed, the smaller the moral consequence…and the smaller individual misery due to bad choices. In a legal system morality is null, and thus unwanted moral consequence should likewise be null and this should translate into people no longer feeling such consequence. And if you think people don’t know this, or don’t understand it on some fundamental level, just look at how quick people are to appeal to the Law when some shit goes down that they don’t like. Don’t like abortion, make it illegal; like abortion, protect it by Law. Don’t like guns, make them illegal; like guns, waggle your finger emphatically in the direction of the second amendment. Don’t like illegal aliens, have the government build a wall; like illegal aliens, have the government provide them with public subsidies and sanctuary. And the list goes on and on and on—education, healthcare, poverty, war, etc. etc.—unto absolute power. Without getting into the minutiae of it right now, it will suffice to say that all of this can be handled by appealing to choice and the responsibility of individuals to deal with the consequnces of those choices. Why don’t we, then, you ask. Well…I suspect because it’s not as linear; not as mathematical; not as ostensibly simple. Legality is also very abstract, which makes it look and feel very intellectual, requiring a high degree of erudition and competence to mange it. Which makes people feel safe in the hands of those who say they shall wield it for the common good.

The bigger the State the smaller the perceived moral consequence.  The smaller the moral consequence the greater the perception that social woes are being or have been handled. And, well, they have been, legally. But not morally, which is why moral degeneration continues not only unabated but even exponentially, whilst legal intervention increases likewise exponentially, as though there is an inverse relationship between the two. But people, confusing moral ethics with legal ethics, continue to vote for this person or that, swinging back and forth with the regularity of a pendulum between the conservative parties and liberal ones, seeking out more and more radical players, in the futile hope that if they just get the right person in charge everything will be fine. Instead of blaming the philosophical assumptions which legitimize government, they blame rulers for not ruling properly. As morality then declines in a morality-less system, and as moral consequence continues to be felt with greater severity, the people begin to vote in greater numbers for ideologues and authoritarians…people who will push or promise to push their agendas with greater force and less compromise. This is because once you’ve accepted that government is good and government is truth and authority is reality and legality is ethics, you understand—though perhaps subconsciously; or even emotionally—that the more despotic the ruler, and the more worthless and disinterested he is at doing anything other than slaking his own thirst for power, the BETTER he is at ruling. Because power IS the only rational objective of ruling Authority, period.

END PART ONE

 

 

The People, the Vote, Representation, and Why All Governments are Tyrannies

By virtue of their underlying metaphysical premises, all collectives, no matter what parameter is selected as the focal point of group identity, necessarily sacrifice individuals.  And they will do this categorically, I should add, with varying degrees of conspicuity.  In a collective, then, we should really spend our energies examining who is not represented rather than what is. Because the necessary lack of real representation for the individual reveals the inherent hypocrisy and contradiction of government, even one which claims that it is established “for the People”.

“The People”, you see, is merely a  projection of the State.  It—not “they”—is a single political unit, based on the metaphysics which give the  group an existential Oneness…that is, all individuals are nothing…they are an epiphenomenon, at best, of the collective metaphysical context. In a collective, even one like the “People”, the individual, if acknowledged at all by the State, is an abstract conceptual figment of the group, not the other way around.  “The People”, is a device, practically speaking, then…an artifice, wherein the government’s natural objective, itself, is projected upon the masses of individuals.  Authoritative Power—the State—must and will only ever serve itself, because Authority is always its own end; and thus Authority is always absolutely singular. The object of its rule, then, the “People”, will become and must be a mirror image of itself.  Individuals by nature stand in opposition to the singularity of Authoritative Power, and the first step in eliminating this opposition is to name individuals after itself.  And from this we wind up with the “People”.  Not “the Persons”, you see, because that would suggest an individual metaphysic, not a collective one. But the People…well, that implies no individual distinctions whatsoever, I submit.  What I mean is that individuals are metaphysically redefined as merely a euphemism for the State, and then are “served” and “represented”.  What this means, practically speaking, is that representation is nothing more than the difference between those who at any given moment are a nominal expression of the State’s ruling power—those who’s votes result in their candidate winning—and those who are not—those who’s candidates lose.  And this is why, inevitably, in all governments, without exception, in all places and at all times, the evolution of the State reveals the exponential rise of government power and the exponential decline of the power of the individual.

A common counterargument to this is to claim that since the vote is driving the polices of the State (at least in theory), then power must thus truly be a derivative of the will of the People.  But, remember that “People” is a collective ideal, and has nothing to do with any individual whatsoever; it is utterly opposed to the individual at the very root level of metaphysical definition. It is, as I have said, nothing more than an expression of the State, itself.  So, the “will of the People” can extend no further than how the “People” is defined, according only to the State, because the State is by its nature, purpose, and definition an authoritative enterprise, period. Full stop. Further, thePeople”, as opposed to the “Persons”, implies collective unity, where the sum of all individuals becomes a thing itself…and even more, becomes that metaphysical singularity which the State exists to “serve”.  The State cannot serve the individual qua the individual.  For the individual is, alone, a natural epistemological, ethical, and political singularity, opposed to the singularity of the Collective (e.g. the “People”), and thus cannot be controlled by the force of Authoritative power, because the individual, himself, is the root of his own existence by his primary and absolute ability to exist in the first place; and being the root, must manifest his existence by his OWN power—his will—and not the power of that which is outside of him.  So the State does not collectivize the individual out of mere convenience’s sake, but because the coercive nature of Authority is entirely incompatible with the individual in every way possible, all the way down to the root of existence itself.  And so by defining man as “People”, the individual is supplanted by the group, the group not only thus to merely possess additional existential properties from that of the “simple” individual, but possessing an entirely new and utterly distinct metaphysical definition altogether, which inexorably eradicates the individual by that metaphysical distinction.  The individual is no longer existentially valid when compared to the collective.  “The People” then becomes the real political unit which the State “represents” and “serves”.

Of course, before the “People” can be “served”, they must be practically defined.  This definition must be bereft of any individualist contribution.  Individuals are not recognized as legitimately existant by the Authority because they possess their own will, which Power cannot recognize, being incompatible with will, as will is rooted in choice and thus reasoning, whilst power is rooted in violence and thus madness.  So the “People” are a metaphysical collective created by the State, which is by nature and necessity devoid of individuality.  Then, for the purposes of political expediency on the part of the ruling classes, the “People” is capriciously (and hypocritically) segmented into abstract categories like “race”, or “economic class”, or “social class”, or “religion”, or “culture”, or “native status”, or “patriotism”, or  “disadvantage”, or some combination thereof, etc. etc. from which “issues” to be voted upon can be harvested and which thus are duly and dutifully accepted and employed by the various political constituencies as an expression of “self government”. As if.

This is all fallacy, of course, because when we are operating within the context of power at the hands of a ruling political elite which manifests its will via the absolute legal (not moral) right to compel behavior by force (the Law), then any and all political issues and any and all acts of political participation by the “People” must necessarily serve the State, period. The political interplay between the Governement and the Governed is nothing more than an ouroboros of State Power, wherein the State devours itself in the form of the “People” (the collective Ideal which is fundamentally incarnate in the State) in order to feed and grow itself.  And this contradiction inevitably leads to its calamitous downfall—it is the proverbial snake swallowing its own tail, and thus it simultaneously starves and gorges itself to death until it finally collapses, taking whole bloody swaths of humanity with it back to the fiery pit of human avarice, hubris, madness, and self-loathing from which it springs.

Now, a little more about voting.

The option of A or B (or C or D or E, etc.) as seen in the political act of voting, is an invalid choice.  True choice is never really between A or B, but in actuality is this:  between A or NOT A, and B or NOT B.  I can have one or the other, or neither.  Having neither must be an option for a truly free person.  But notice how “neither” is conspicuously absent from the voting process when the State is officiating.  This is because “neither” is in fact a rejection of the State. But the State, being Authority, which is Force, which is violence, cannot recognize such an option as “NOT itself”, and thus cannot recognize the individual’s true choice and thus never, ever allows “neither” to be an option.  For even those who do not vote at all vote, and by that I mean that they will be subject to its results, whether they like it or not.  The choice not to vote leaves those who do not vote under the thumb of the elected rulers every bit as much as those who do.  And thus their choice not to vote, like voting itself, is not really a choice at all.  You see, once the individual has been metaphysically redefined by the State according to the ephemeral and furiously destructive principles of collectivism, voting becomes an entirely State-run, State-serving, State-centerened, State-expanding exercise, period.

 

How the Law Promotes Crime (Part Two)

The law, by making right and wrong a function of obedience, thus nullifying morality by nullifying choice, does not provide any fundamentally rational incentive for the individual to avoid the behavior the law forbids under threat of punishment via the state. The law tacitly proclaims the individual irrelevant. Even more than irrelevant. Counter productive; an aberration; anathema; a mistake; unnatural. The individual, you see, is self-aware, which means that he thinks for himself, and has an absolute frame of reference from himself (singular) that demands that he exist and act to and for himself. This is of course not what the state wants; it is not reflective of what the state needs and what the state is. The state, by its nature, demands that all individuals view reality from the perspective of the state, and act to and from and for ITSELF. Because the state is Authority. It is the incarnation of the collective ideal to which all men are then bound. The collective ideal is the reality which necessitates the Authority of the state…to compel individuals out of their individuality and into the collective.

But the individual of course cannot do this…for he only observes reality from a single existential position: himself. By his nature and because of that nature the individual chooses. He must chooose. He must will.

Because knowledge (thought) is rooted in distinctions between truth and lie, and good and evil, knowledge is the practical working out of these distinctions. And the practical working out of these distinctions implies choice. But the law sees choice as anathema…as completely unnatural. The law is force, and force has nothing to do with choice. Man cannot choose to obey because obedience implies force, and force makes choice irrelevant.

Absent choice—absent will—man has no frame of reference for himself. A man whose choice is considered illegitmate must also consider his existence illegitimate. For absent choice the distinction between right and wrong and true and false and good and evil are irrelevant to him, and thus any knowledge, even that of his own SELF, is entirely meaningless. And this, taken to its logical intellectual conclusion, means that no one actually exists to obey the law in the first place. As soon as the law becomes the ethical standard the individual ceases to exist. He cannot obey because he isn’t real. His very nature is anthethical to reality as defined and accepted by the state. And thus the state’s law delegitimizes man at the level of his root existence. And because he has been delegitimized, he cannot be truly, rationally, incentivized to obey.

The state will claim that the law safeguards the best interests of the individual (sometimes by explicitly collectivizing him, a la Marxist totalitarianism). But this is impossible because it cannot recognize him. And the individual, I submit, understands this fact in his base instinct, and therefore the market for crime goes up because the law provides no meaningful reason to obey it. All it can offer as a disincentive is punishment, but this inevitably fails because for man to be perpetually under law he is, implicitly, already punished, and perpetually so…for existing. And so if the desire or reward for committing a crime outweighs the chances of getting caught or the penalty, then crime, by the very ethics which underwrite the law, is going to be worth it. Crime thus has implicit value. And this, dear readers, is why there is a market for crime.

Further, and even more troubling, is that a given individual may view the commission of a crime—the disobeying of the law—as an expression of his truth…of his individuality. And thus he may feel empowered and even free by his crime. Of course certain acts defined by law as criminal can certainly also be immoral—as in the case of theft or murder, for example—but the criminal, should he intuit in his soul nothing more than that the law renders his individuality meaningless, will not apprehend this. He may engage in crime as a sort of means of self-expression, not understanding that just because an act is illegal does not mean that it is not also actually immoral.

Now, for those of us who do understand that violations of other individuals are immoral, the law at root has nothing to do with why we do not commit such acts. We do not commit them because they are illegal but because they are immoral. We reject them upon the truth of their immorality in spite of the law, understanding that the law has nothing to do with evil or good, but only with power. I submit that if someone refrains from murder simply because he does not want to be punished then he has committed murder already in his heart…because he has conceded the law’s false morality and rejected the value of the individual. For there is nothing truly immoral under law because the law does not recognize morality’s one true and rational standard:

You, and me.

Stefan Molyneux’s Noble Failure Definitively Explained: Why Universally Preferable Behavior is not a System of Ethics

Scattered within Stefan Molyneux’s voluminous monologues and conversations are references to his “defense of secular ethics” which he has organized into a formal work he calls “Universally Preferable Behavior” (UPB). I have taken issue with UPB before on this blog, but my arguments have never fully satisfied me.  But neither has UPB ever fully satisfied me either.

The more I thought about it, something continued to feel off…specious, about his arguments, yet for all my articles, I still struggled to put my finger definitely on the problem. For a while I was content to let the issue go, satisfied that I had rebuffed enough of Stefan’s ethical system to at least cast a reasonable doubt as to its rational consistency.  Still, the more I listened to Stefan and the more he promoted UPB to the various viewers and listeners of his podcast and YouTube channel, I felt compelled to put the issue to rest once and for all.  Stefan seemed (and seems) so confident that UPB is the answer to the problem of secular ethics, and yet the more he talked, the more confident I became that there was something seriously wrong with it. His arguments sounded reasonable, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that he was missing something crucial…that he was, as Sallah said to Indiana Jones, “digging in the wrong place”. So I put my nose to the grindstone, determined to root out the issue once and for all.

Here I go.

Stefan, a self-admitted atheist, argues, rightly, that atheistic philosophies inevitably boil down to hypocritical scientific determinism. He then also rightly points out that before atheistic philosophies can be considered fully legitimate, let alone provide any real value to humankind, they must address the problem of scientific determinism nullifying morality by removing will.  Because without will there is no moral choice.

Stefan attempts to correct this discrepancy by providing a “defense of secular ethics” through his own system, Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB).  He gives us, as he says, an ethical system “without God”.  Which is weird because what he really means is “without Authority”, because “God’s ethics” are the ethics of a supreme Authority which possesses the infinitely superior power to compel human behavior by force.  Interestingly, though, this ethic is adopted by ANYONE who concedes that the State is a legitimate means of organizing human behavior, as the State is such an authority.  Which naturally includes both those who hold secular beliefs and those who are religious, as anyone can see by merely perusing a cross section of the population of almost any nation on earth.

Stefan’s fundamental defense of his secular ethics is rooted in the following example: Stealing isn’t stealing if you WANT to be stolen from.  Stealing, he says, is not a mutual agreement.  Therefore, it cannot be preferred by all parties.  But, conversely, the voluntary exchange of property IS, and thus voluntary exchange of property IS a universally preferred ethic.  Of course, this argument also works if we substitute “theft” with fraud, murder, rape, etc., because “property” rationally includes one’s truth and one’s body, and this is how the example of theft can be extrapolated to apply to volition vs non-volition as the essence of ethics, which is implied by UPB. Stefan asserts that he’s successfully argued an ethic without God, because we can use pure human reason to prove that theft cannot be ethical because it cannot apply to all individuals at all times.  Corollary to this, voluntary exchange of property has simultaneously been proven to be ethical because it DOES apply to all individuals at all times.

But has Stefan really argued successfully for a UNIVERSAL ethic here?

No, he hasn’t. And here’s why:

Now, it is true that I cannot WANT you to take my property without permission because giving permission—which is implied by “wanting”—and not giving permission is a contradiction in terms.  The operative concept in Stef’s example is not really “theft”, then, but “permission”.

You see, the concept of theft inherently assumes the existence (reality) and legitimacy (morality) of private property.  The fact that I cannot WANT you to steal from me doesn’t have anything to do with theft, in particular, at all.  “Theft” is merely one of virtually any activity you could use in Stef’s example, because when I say that I cannot want you to steal from me I’m merely saying that I cannot give permission for a thing and NOT give permission for a thing at the same time.  I cannot both give you permisssion and not give you permission to mow my lawn, or to sell me a teapot, or to offer me a cookie, or to tell me your favorite color.  In other words, Stefan makes “theft” the primary issue and sews a whole Ethic out of it, when the primary issue is really the implied contradiction in “desired theft”—the inability to want and not want/to give permission and not give permission at the same time.  “I want you to take without permission that which can only be given with permission” is not a root of Ethics but merely a contradiction in terms. Period.

The very claim that “I want you to steal from me” implies that the speaker assumes that private property exists, and thus he must ALREADY accept it as legitimate.  You see, if I say that I think theft should be ethical I’ve already implicitly contradicted myself by legitimizing  private property through my very use—and thus corollary acceptance of its meaning—of the concept of “theft”.  Through the concept of theft I concede the existence and legitimacy of private property, thus OBVIOUSLY I cannot also claim that theft should be ethical.  That is, I’ve already conceded, by calling theft by its name, that it is UNETHICAL by tacitly admitting the existence of private property.  The contradiction of desired theft, is, as I stated above, the contradiction of “giving permission” whilst simultaneously “not giving permission”.  Desired theft is nothing more than the contradiction that says private property isn’t private.

There is nowhere else to take the idea of “desired theft” beyond the contradiction. The contradiction is its own end.  By definition contradictions are circular and thus nothing can be inferred.  You cannot formulate an entire ethical system from that which is meaningless. All you can do is simply point out its meaninglessness. The fact that theft cannot be universally preferred is not an ethical claim but merely the stating of the obvious fact that it is a contradiction in terms to say that both private property AND theft are moral.

*

Not stealing can only be a universal ethic if we accept the existence and legitimacy of private property. But if we don’t, then the “universally preferable behavior” of not stealing is meaningless.  If I reject the existence and legitimacy of private property then there is no such thing as an ethic of “not stealing” because according to my philosophy there can be no such thing as stealing in the first place.

What Stefan is arguing is simply that private property exists and thus has legitimacy, and thus is ethical, and in HIS SPECIFIC philosophical context theft MUST be unethical and illegitimate in order to be rationally consistent TO the philosophy as a whole. Which is fine, but again, this point holds no relevance for those who reject private property. UPB is not a rebuttal of divine ethics, it is really an obvious and unremarkable commentary on his own personal ethical beliefs and implicitly appealing to a metaphysical premise he never explains.  Those who believe that God fundamentally owns everything and IS everything don’t believe in private property.  They don’t have any real frame of reference for theft, so they don’t care that it’s an ethical contradiction in Stef’s personal belief system. In other words, Stefan’s “universally preferred willful value exchange” cannot possibly be preferred by those who do not concede the existence of private property. And this is why universally preferable behavior is not in fact universally preferable. It’s only CONDITIONALLY preferable. It depends on your metaphysics.

Now, the problem isn’t that Stefan’s implicit claim that private property exists is necessarily false, the problem is that he extracts an ethic from a metaphysical assumption that must be accepted BEFORE the ethics can then be said to be universal.  That is, the problem is with the use of the term “universal” to describe an ethic that is only universal to people who concede the same metaphysical premises Stefan does. To call your ethics UNIVERSALLY preferable without first proving your metaphysics is to implicitly demand that people accept your metaphysics before you’ve actually proved them. This smacks of arrogance.

Further, it’s uneccesary and presumptuous AND contradictory to refer to your ethics, or anything about your philosophy at all for that matter, as universal. If your metaphysics are truly consistent then your ethics are true. Nothing else should be said. Period. I mean, Universally Preferable Ethics implies a Universally Preferable Reality,  because you don’t get ethics without metaphysics first. But Universally Preferable Reality is simply another contradiction in terms…on top of the arrogance. “Reality is Universal” is redundant, and thus the universal ethics stemming from this universal reality then are also redundant. So, if reality is universal (redundancy) and thus the ethics are universal (redundancy) then preference is impossible (contradiction). Any way you slice it, it doesn’t work.

To conclude: Stefan’s argument isn’t really that theft is unethical, but that private property EXISTS.  But “private property exists” is not an ethical claim, it’s a metaphysical one.  And believe me, “Universally Preferable Reality” is an entirely different ball of wax…not to mention an inherent contradiction. In summary, Stefan is digging in the wrong place. He’s thinks he’s rooting around in ethics when he is really in the land of metaphysics.

Metaphysically, though, I can tell you that Stefan is no closer to any sort of universal truth than he is to a universal ethic with UPB.  Because if he was, he would not be appealing to a contextual assertion about the nature of reality stated as a contradiction in terms in defense of an ethical system with a redundant title.

Feeling Free is Not Freedom: The size of the cage doesn’t matter

It doesn’t matter how the State makes you feel, it only matters what the State MAKES you. There is no difference in terms of real, actual repression between the citizen of a free republic and the citizen of an autocracy.  Indeed, for the one who desires to be truly, rationally free, freedom is infinitely out of reach in both contexts.  I find it failed reason and false hope to suggest or assert that one is closer to freedom simply because he is in larger cage.

And further, a premise is a premise.  And by that I mean that if we presume that man, by his very nature, needs governing in order to act in ways that are efficacious to his prosperity—which means that absent governing he will not prosper, which means inevitably he shall die unless he is COMPELLED to moral behavior—then we are saying that man, by nature, cannot efficaciously exercise his own will.  Which means that he simply cannot be free…at all.  ALL his actions MUST only occur under the umbrella of legal governing Authority. His very existential, not to mention social, context must be FORCED upon him, and within these boundaries are all his choices confined, which limits and constrains them ENTIRELY to the will of the Authority.  The size of the cage is irrelevant.  A cage is a cage; and since the cage implies absolute ownership and control of what is inside, there can be no freedom whatsoever within its dimensions. Though the edge stretch to the the sun, one’s every step is utterly defined by its boundaries. And they aren’t boundaries of human identity, but of Authority.  There is a world of difference between not being able to flap your arms and fly to the moon because your natural identity as a human being precludes it, and because the Authority forbids it.  And there is a world of difference between flying to New York because your natural identity as a human being enables it, and because the Authority allows it.

Both the republic and the autocracy, by their very existence, concede the premise that man MUST be governed.  For to say that he need not necessarily be governed begs the question “Is government a better choice?” But by its nature government cannot understand such a question. Government, being Authority, and absolutely so, (as there is no efficacy to Legality, the root of all association under government, absent the force of the State) has no frame of reference for its own absence. Add to that the fact that the question, once government is given legitimacy by simply asking it, is entirely irrelevant.

Government and choice, you see, are mutually exclusive ideas. To entertain government at all, even as a mere abstraction, they would HAVE to be. From the frame of reference of government, if the individual possessed the ability to discern between good and evil and act accordingly (exercise choice), he wouldn’t NEED government in the first place. That is, the very existence of government implies that man needs it; and if man needs it then the question of whether or not it’s better for him is moot.

So, both the republic and the autocracy organize individuals according to the premise that individuals require governing. The mere aesthetic differences in how that premise is observed is of no value to freedom qua freedom (freedom that is ACTUAL, and rationally consistent).  For both approaches are specifically designed to affirm, not contradict, the premise.  Men MUST be ruled.  And if that is the primary epistemological and ethical root from which society is spawned then there is simply nowhere for freedom to exist.  Freedom qua freedom is an impossibility therein.  Freedom cannot give rise to what it is not; and Authority—the State—cannot recognize, let alone accommodate, that which denies its very existence. In other words, you don’t get freedom from government, and you don’t get government from freedom.