Tag Archives: all governments are tyrannies

Tyranny Does Not Thwart the Constitution, It Perfects It: An controversial look at the philosophical roots of our government (PART TWO)

In the last article we left off by discussing how Authority (Force) and Freedom are two completely distinct, antithetical ethical and political premises. We continue now with the breakdown and examination of my response.

”[Government] implies that human interaction must ultimately occur only via dictated terms from an Authority placed over him…”

Government exists to enforce Law, which is an ethic that requires man to OBEY a DICTATED social contract. The more man obeys the Law then, the more he affirms government as a legitimate and necessary institution. Law is a tool of government used to promote ITSELF, not the individual. In other words, obedience does NOT affirm CHOICE, it by definition affirms AUTHORITY. The whole point of law is to elevate and promote obedience over choice; authority over will; compliance over freedom; Government over the Individual. The Law, and thus the goverenment, because one cannot exist without the other, cannot promote a MORAL society but merely an OBEDIENT one, because there is no such thing as morality absent volition…that is, absent choice. And at root the Law does not care what you WANT or what you might CHOOSE, it only cares what you FEAR, and from that, the degree to which you OBEY. It uses fear of punishment and condemnation (from government…or from Authority, that is) as THE means by which it establishes the supremacy of its ethics. The one who at root has no use for his own self-will, in the face of overwhelming violent coercive power, understands, even if only subconsciously, that he has no fundamental use for his own self-IDENTITY. And thus he becomes existentially fused with the collective (in our case, the “People”) and the obedient hive-mind of the masses. And every time he votes, it doesn’t matter for whom—the victor is ALWAYS the antithesis of freedom. A vote for Authority is a vote for the nullification of one’s self.

“The problem is that since all men are human, and humans are said to be fundamentally flawed, morally (meaning they are insufficient to their own existence absent an external power which dictates their behavior by force), who shall be put in charge? There can be no rational answer to this question.”

I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but I hope that its significance makes a deep impression on the reader. The universal, ceaselessly repeated trope that “we can’t just let everyone do whatever they want” SPECIFICALLY, inexorably, unquestionably, and unavoidably proclaims a fundamental, metaphysical, and thus absolute depravity of mankind. It is a declaration that man has NO endemic, natural capacity to act in service to what is good, and thus necessarily implies that his WILL is corrupt to the point where it cannot legitimately be called WILLFUL at all. And if man cannot really ever choose good of and by himself according to his nature, then what use has man for knowledge? And this rhetorical question means that knowledge itself is, for all practical purposes, entirely wasted on man. This arrantly evil metaphysic condemns ALL men to “spiritual” or “moral” and epistemological (man cannot know truth, because he cannot discern between good and evil) death as a corollary function of their very birth. According to this metaphysic then, the birth of man is utterly impossible—THE contradiction of all contradictions. That God or Nature gives life to Death. That birth is the Affliction of Afflictions which is that one can only ever be conscious of his own fundamental unconsciousness.

“…what happens is that man is collectivized into an Ideal…and THAT, not the individual, is what shall be served. That Ideal then implies rulers…those who are seen as mirroring its virtues most closely. So [because of this fact], even if we are “freely electing” our leaders [the ruling class] we are…doing so not based upon what is best for Man the Individua, but Man the Ideal.”

To establish government is to metaphysically presuppose that man must be ruled, full stop. Anyone who thinks that government is merely an OPTION for mankind as a means of social organization has not thoroughly thought through that assumption, or is intellectually incapable of it. “Government” and ‘absolute control of reality, itself” are synonymous, philosophically speaking; and at any rate, regardless what you or I may think, government NEVER considers the possibility that its power is transient, and that its institutions are purely emphemeral. Government by its nature IS, and what it is is authority; and that Authority is necessary for the perpetuation of reality, ITSELF. It CANNOT imagine itself as a memory because it cannot, by NATURE, fathom ANYTHING outside of itself. It thus cannot get smaller, only bigger. For even reductions of government control are only forthcoming by ACTS of the governemnt (e.g.tax cuts), making these reductions simply manifestations of government power. Which is why I chuckle at people who run for office as Libertarians. Their basic philosophy is: they will reduce the power of government by acting in the capacity OF government; they will restrict its authority BY its authority. Sorry, but it doesnt work that way. That’s like saying you can wish away gravity. Gravity is not subject to your feelings, hopes, dreams, or ignorance. It IS, and will do what it does to its greatest and absolute possible extent, ALL the time. And any action you might take to reduce the power of gravity MUST concede it as a constant. Gravity is FORCE, PERIOD. It’s never less than that; it’s never more. And it is always itself to the maximum degree. So it is with government.

And yet, amazingly, Americans, who consider themselves THE very perfect progeny of the Enlightenment, persistently speak of the Constitution as THE guardian of Inidivdual Freedom. As if Freedom can be a function of rules, enforced by the the State through violence. They seem shocked at the rank and shameless expansion of their government, and the utterly non-subtle erosion of their rights and property, and speak of such things as a corruption of the Constitution. But these things, my friend, you must understand, are not a corruption of the Constitution, but a PERFECTING of it. The government, regardless of how it is organized, is never a stepping-stone to freedom, but is in fact the very antithesis of it. The conclusion of the premise which declares “controlled and compelled” behavior as THE means by which man’s existence is enabled, ensured, and perpetuated is: ABOLUTE CONTROL. And this should be obvious to us, if not by reason then by the empirical evidence of thousands and thousands of years of human history. When has the government ever been a stepping-stone to LESS of itself? When has the State ever conceded, via its own volition and based upon its own underwriting philosophical premise, that it is merely one option of several for man to select as a means of social organization?

It has never happened because it CANNOT happen.

The fundamental, metaphysical premise of government is that man must be ruled in order to ensure his very existence; that is, man, born an Individual, is not by nature nor root identity sufficient to LIFE. In other words, for man to be himself, and not the Collective Ideal of the State, is for man not to BE at all. The destruction of Individual will then is an existential necessity, and is THE fundamental purpose the State serves, by nature and implication; the Indivudal must die to SELF, in order that he may live to the State. And to live for the State—to live for the Authority which compells him to the Collective Ideal (e.g. The People)—is the only way he can live at all.

And it is here where we can begin to see just how even a Representative Republic with free elections is no hedge against the inevitable absolutism of government power. Once man has accepted the metaphysics of Collectivism implied by the State, then he simply CANNOT act politically in a way that affirms the Individual. And once this premise has been conceded by a society, and set in stone, literally, by the establishment of government, there is no going back. The establishment of Institutional Authority  is a bell that cannot be un-rung. You cannot reject a master…even one you have “elected” and “freely chosen”, because it is of course no longer up to you. Humanity in a “free republic” has declared its need for a master by appealing to its existential insufficiency, which means that the master cannot EVER be in a position to entertain any cries for freedom because he exists precisely because humanity, by its OWN admission, is incapable of ever knowing just what it needs in the first place. For the government, even in a “free republic”. to think that it shall become LESS controlling rather than more is a rejection of its mandate to SERVE humanity. To give you freedom is tantamount to allowing a child to run headlong into traffic. It is FOR YOU that you are made servile, don’t you see?

The autocracy rules the masses for its own sake, but the democracy rules them for THEIR sake. Which, of course, in practicality becomes likewise ITS sake, but the intentions are thought more benevolent. The autocracy travels as the crow flies, you could say, whilst the democracy takes the (ostensible) scenic route.

”The American Ideal is “the People”, which is as close to Individualism as you might get from government, but it is still a collectivist Ideal and thus the road map take us to Tyranny, even though we are sure we intended to go to Freedom”

Just like every rock of any size will sink to the bottom of the ocean, every government will descend into the nightmare of authoritarianism.

END.

 

Advertisements

Tyranny Does Not Thwart the Constitution, It Perfects It: A controversial look at the philosophical roots of our government (PART ONE)

This is controversial…I’m just going to say it. I know it, and yet the facts are still the facts. I cannot pretend that a square is also a circle, and so I cannot pretend that Authority is also Freedom.  Authority is force, and force is the antithesis of freedom. The Constitution canonizes government rule…government authority. And though it decrees “limited authority” I submit that this is a rational contradiction in terms. Government authority cannot be limited because it is the root IDENTITY of Government. It IS the irreducible core of the State. Everything the State does flows from its Authority to compel individuals by force against their will (force necessarily making “will” fundamentally irrelevant).

When we speak of limiting the government we are talking about limiting its Authority; which means we are talking about limiting its identity. But how do you limit the identity of a thing? It cannot be done. How do you limit the identity of a bird, for example? How do you make a bird less of itself? A bird is a bird is a bird. BEING a bird is absolute. There is no such thing as a bird which we know is a bird being somehow not as much of a bird as another bird. Somehow bird A is a full bird but bird B is a “limited bird”. It’s BIRDNESS is somehow truncated. This is complete nonsenses. To claim we can limit the Authority of the government is to say we can limit the GOVERNMENTNESS of government. This is also complete nonsense.  So the Constitution, necessarily and by definition affirming the State and thereby its Authority, affirms State Authority ABSOLUTELY. It concedes the full “governmentness” of government…and yet attempts to limit that identity. It declares the bird a bird, and then goes on to describe how this particular bird will somehow be less of a bird than all the other birds which came before it.  This bird, being birthed from other birds, will somehow have a root identity of BOTH birdness and not-birdness. It will be both a bird and the opposite of bird.

Madness. Beautiful and perhaps well-intentioned madness, but madness nevertheless.

Look, the only way the Constitution could ever limit government power is if it were claim that there is no government at all. Which, if the Constitution did that, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

*

The other day I was debating a fellow commentor on a blog I occasionally visit. We were at odds over the feasibility of the American Republic; the Constitution, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to establishing a truly free and just society. If you have read much of my blog, you already know which side of the fence I sit on. I am a voluntarist, categorically, and this means that I accept as rational and efficacious only the utter ABSENCE of Ruling Authority when it comes to politics. The State, being FORCE, necessarily rejects individual will and choice as necessary or even fundamentally possible to the establishment of a truly ethical and efficacious society. And this is the very antithesis of humanity, period. Government undermines the identity of man and replaces it with the identity of the State, and substitutes choice with force, value exchange with violence, and morality with legality.

My fellow commentor is of the small-government, libertarian persuasion, through I’m not sure she identifies hereself as officially a Libertarian party member. At any rate, during the course of our discussion she said the following (edited for clarity and brevity):

”…our Constitution…was supposed to be our road map…We were supposed to have a very limited government. I’ve read enough of the founders to know that most of them thought of government as being evil but necessary.”

And I replied:

”…I understand your points. I agree with you on the Founders’ intentions. The Constitution being a road map implies a journey. Unfortunately it cannot be to capital “F” Freedom because it implies government, which implies Authority, which implies a metaphysic that declares man, at the level of his natural identity, incapable of establishing a just society absent violent coercive force. It implies that human interaction must ultimately occur only via dictated terms from an Authority placed over him. The problem is that since all men are human, and are said to be morally flawed creatures at root which is why government is necessary (meaning that man’s nature makes him insufficient to his own existence absent an external power which compels him into “right” behavior by threat and force), then the question is: who shall be put in charge?

And of course by the very metaphysical premise—the inherent depravity of man—there can be no rational answer to this question.

So what happens is that man is collectivized into an Ideal…and this Ideal he understands is what shall be served. That Ideal then implies rulers…those who are seen as mirroring its virtues most closely.So…even if we are “freely electing” our leaders, we are doing so not based upon what is best for Man the Individual, but Man the Ideal. The American Ideal is “the People”, which granted is as close to Individualism as you will ever get from government, but it’s still a collectivist Ideal. And thus the road map takes us to Tyranny, even though we are sure we intended to go to Freedom.

And, not being snarky here, honestly, but if an evil is NECESSARY wouldn’t that actually make it good?”

*

After reading my comment a couple of times, I realized that I only superficially touched upon what are pretty complex issues with respect to government and the philosophical principles which underwrite it, and in so doing I did not do justice to them, nor to my fellow commentor. But in the interest of not wanting to post a comment under a blog article which was longer than the article itself, I kept my points as brief as I felt reasonable. Unfortunately I believe I might have merely sewn confusion rather than clarity. Thus this article here on my own blog, where space is unlimited, if not my readers’ patience, so allow me to fill in the gaps. I will do this by breaking down my comment into sections and explicating accordingly.

*

”[The Constitition] cannot [take us] to ‘capital F’ Freedom because it implies government, which implies Authority…”

Governemnt by nature is FORCE. The ROOT and FUNDAMENTAL and ABSOLUTE purpose is to exercise coercive (violent) power to compel specific behavior, which by implicit and rational logical extension means that it controls ALL behavior. This is because the Individual—he who is the SINGULAR source and author of the behavior to be compelled—cannot be metaphysically parsed. In other words. man is by natural identity a creature of will; this is what separates him from the animals. The very cornerstone of man’s Identity is his Will. He is a VOLITIONAL agent, not an instinctual one. Which is why man can be held morally culpable for his actions where an animal cannot. If man cannot by will CHOOSE to act, then his behavior cannot be categorized as moral or immoral. In which case, by what basis can it be argued that man should be governed? The claim is that man is morally insufficient, which is why he must be compelled by force into right behavior. The ability of man to CHOOSE is implicit in the argument of the necessity of government. The fact that man is a moral agent is WHY there is government. Of course by subordinating individual will to State power man’s morality becomes moot. By claiming that man will inevitably CHOOSE wrong on the whole when left to himself becomes the reason why choice must be nullified by Authority. But if man no longer can choose then man is no longer a willful agent. And without will man has no identity; so what govement implies is the destruction of man in order that man can live a successful existence and not destroy himself.

That’s…a lot of contradictions and other logical fallacies. But that’s govement.

Anyway…

Man’s will is singular…that is, ALL his actions proceed from ONE will…His Own. To claim the right to force man to do this or that (as government does), or not do this or that, by threat of punishment (unto death) is NOT merely a limiting of the will but a rank commandeering of it. Will is absolute. It cannot be limited; it is indivisible. To force a man to act or not act one way necessarily subordinates ALL of man’s subsequent actions to force. All subsequent actions occur within the context not of freedom but of coercion. In other words, if govement forces you to act one way, it doesn’t mean that you are free to act in other ways, it only means that you are ALLOWED to act in those other ways (and temporarily at that, if history is our guide). And being allowed to do something is NOT the same thing as being FREE do it.

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.

 

What’s all the Fuss About?: The de facto chaos of a society under Law

The political violence (mostly on the left) you see on the news every night is merely a perfunctory iteration of the Hegelian dialectic…used necessarily by collectivists of all stripes throughout the world over the years: create chaos–manage the chaos towards the desired outcome.

Now, when I say “collectivists”, I don’t simply mean the various iterations of socialism (Marxism, Fascism, cultural leftism…which is just Marxism with the “classes” loosely categorized by race). I mean anyone who believes that the social and/or economic interaction of human beings can rationally and efficacious be dictated in any measure by violence or threats thereof.  That is, anyone who believes that the State, which is at root purely force (for without the ability to violently punish those who do not submit to its authority, there is no State, period), can possess any legitimate role in the rational existence of humanity.

Whether you know it or admit it or not, you are a collectivist. You assert that individuals can and should be legitimately subject to a common moral code–which is nothing more than a collective identity, where they are bound to others not by choice but by force–that is, without their consent. For the very existence of government in any measure implies forced compliance. And force is mutually exclusive of choice. By definition.  There is no way to produce a free society by obligating at gunpoint individuals to codefied, collective behaviors. Period. The contradiction destroys reason; and since human freedom is reasonable, it must necessarily destroy freedom.

And minarchists, this means you, too.

You are either a voluntarist or you are a socialist; an individualist or a collectivist. There simply is no in between.

As long as social contract exists under the auspices of government power (i.e. obedience to Law as the highest moral value; thereby transferring the moral reference from the individual to the Law…which is really just the government, because absent the supremacy of state power (violence) the Law has no practical jurisdiction and therefore is irrelevant)…yes, as long as social contact exists under the auspices of government power, society will only ever be chaos controlled by the coercive violence wielded by a few over the many.

The fight for power and the necessary increase in governmental jurisdiction implied by the premise (that man needs government to survive his own existence…that absent someone to FORCE his obedience to an abstract, subjective set of codified values (the Law) man cannot exist) means that eventually the whole system collapses into pit of madness and blood. Then the few bleary-eyed survivors rebuild and start the whole process over again.

And that’s what the fuss is all about.

Welcome to the matrix.

And you thought it was just a movie.

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

I submit that Morality cannot be codified; it is ontologically endemic; it’s a function of the Self qua the Self. Morality cannot be put into a list and then applied to humanity collectively. And this is because morality, being a function of the Individual Self, is absolutely and fundamentally individual.  And it is indeed absolute…for you are nothing if not YOU, and utterly so (meaning it is impossible to quantify You…to make your ONE and ONLY knowable frame of reference for all reality a matter of parts). Morality observed and understood rationally demands that the individual, in his singular existential context, be viewed as the Moral Standard.

All this being true, morality is therefore automatically and categorically contradicted when codified. Once listed, it is removed from the individual, placed beyond his true and objective experience and reality and becomes nothing but a set of abstract rules which then attempts to define and contextualize all individual experience into a single collective category: the Law. And just like that man’s moral worth is no longer a function of himself and his own unique experiences and relationships; relationships where he honors the morality of other men by treating them with the same respect and sanctity with which he rationally should be treated…as a matter of choice, NOT threats, making violations of his fellow man TRULY immoral and himself TRULY guilty. Instead it becomes a function of obedience to the Law. And since obedience is fundamentally not a choice, because demands of obedience promise punishment for disobedience, which taken to its logical conclusion means the right of an Authority–always established specifically to force compliance to the Law–to destroy those who do not obey, then choice is removed from the individual’s existential equation. That is, once morality is a function of force and not choice, it is no longer morality by definition. You see, if one acts under the threat of death, then they are not choosing to act; they are acting as merely a necessary matter of course, invoking no more volition than they do when breathing or sweating.  For there is no such thing as a choice between death and life, because there is no true choice between nothing and something.

So the Law, in an effort to create a moral society, does the exact opposite. It strips man of his individuality, which is his entire and self-evident frame of reference for ALL things and ALL reality, which thus nullifies choice. And once man cannot choose to do good then he cannot do good at all, ever, because morality and choice are corollaries. And if man cannot do good then there is only one thing that the Authority (which always means the State, because Authority and State are corollaries, too), which is specifically tasked with manifesting GOOD, can do with man.

Annhiliate him.

And here then we have this equation:

Morality = Law = State = violence to compel Man to Law = death of man = death of Law = death of State

And this is the self-nullifying progression of collectivist ideology upon which ALL governments are based.  Notice that it demands the death of man in favor of absolute, and absolutely abstract, Authority, as the practical application of the Moral Standard: the Law. Morality, and thus the entirety of the worth of man, becomes a function of the degree to which he is sacrificed to the Law, which is (as corollary) his sacrifice to the State. Naturally then the greater the degree of sacrifice the closer he is to moral perfection. Inevitably then man is, in the latter stages of a given State’s evolution, sacrificed absolutely–his greatest moral accomplishment being his death, by the State, in order to completely satisfy the Law (and, yes, Jesus Christ is an apt example of this: His death was ultimately a POLITICAL one, no matter what mystic pablum the church spins for you). The Law thus, in the real and rational sense, is merely violence against man for the sake of violence. This is because once there are no more men left to destroy the Law becomes moot. For without the blood of man in which to bathe what is the Law? After all, the Law is not for itself, but for man…the Law for itself is a contradiction in terms.

So…the purpose of the Law is to morally perfect that which it must annihilate. (Find the contradiction in any idea and you will find the evil.) And when the consequences of attempting to implement such rank and pernicious hypocrisy collapse under the weight of years and years of contradiction disguised as regulatory and electoral “fixes”, the few traumatized and stumbling, delirious and starving survivors slowly come together and resolve to rebuild…and invariably start the whole process over again.

Humanity…when shall we ever learn?

Any Honest King Will Keep His Wormtongue and Kill His Conscience

Only in fantasy stories do kings wake up and cast off their Wormtongues. This is because Wormtongue is the reality of the innate and necessary corruption of Authority–the compelling of behavior by “legal” violence, despite the most noble of rulers and their noble  intentions.

You see, in reality, it is Wormtongue who speaks the truth to the King; and it is the King’s conscience which lies. A “good King”–that is, a truthful and honest king, who is consistent with the metaphysic which demands Authority to compel obedience to Law–will abide Wormtongue and banish love.

Is this good, rationally speaking? Of course not: but again, it is good IF we accept the axiomatic definition of Man which necessitates the idea that it is appropriate to govern him. And by “govern” I mean: organize his behavior, specifically his interactions with himself (men and women associating with others), by codifying moral behavior (Law), and thus moving it outside of its only true and natural source, the individual, and thereby making morality utterly abstract and thus utterly subjective as far as man is concerned, and thereby necessitating an Authority–be it a King or any other incarnation of State Violence (that is, the State, period), even “democratically elected public officials” (and by the bye, a greater example of raw, meaningless, subjectivity you’ll not find anywhere than those words)–whose authority transcends any real rational integrity, and who fundamentally exists for the sole purpose of using force and threats to cause the obedience of the denizens.

And what is this definition of man?

It is that he is not him Self. He is not “I”. “I” is an illusory existential frame of reference–a lie–which, by its inexorable and infinite hold on him, makes him unable to perceive the Truth: which is that he is, in fact, nothing at all. That he qua he (he as Individual), is really an infinite collection. He is the group, yet never OF the group. He is “race”, or “class”, or “sex”, or “nation”, or “church”, or “minority”, or “underprivileged”, etc.. The individual is the group; which contradicts his individuality, and thus demands that it be sacrificed by the Authority into the collective “reality.”

And so I say again, any honest King, with even the slightest apprehension of just what the fuck his whole point is, and whether he admits it to himself or not, understands that he is Violence to men, and literally nothing else. He IS the force which compels everyone and everything into the collective Ideal. He is The Efficacy of the Ideal…of the Utopia…of the Collective Paradise. And thus, he IS the very Ideal itself. And this being true, it is his duty to incessantly invite Wormtongue to stifle whatever compassion he may be tempted towards. For to deny the raw and unfettered subjugation and sacrifice of men is to deny the Ideal, and thus deny himself.

There is no such thing as a King with a conscience. Any such King admits, whether he knows it or not, that he is a fraud, and that sooner or later, the kingdom MUST collapse.

And it will.

It will.

Mandatory Voting: To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is not a choice (Finale)

Let’s talk about mandatory voting laws, as seen in some countries. Australia comes to mind off the bat. I have read the Wikipedia article on compulsory voting, and I can assure you that none of the arguments presented here in this article were addressed in that one.  In other words, unsurprisingly, there was no rational consistency to the “against” arguments in the Wikipedia article.  This is because once you concede the legitimacy of Government–that is, Force–to command behavior to subjective social (politics and ethics) outcomes, there IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST GOVERNMENT FORCE.  Incidentally, this is why it makes sense to avoid almost all political discussions these days.  Because, you see, the real debate is not about which political ideology should become law–that is, should be thrust upon the masses at gunpoint, which is what law is, because the Law NEEDS violent men to enforce it or it is irrelevant–but about whether or not anyone has a right to use violence to compel the behavior of another.  And if all sides start the argument from the place of “yes”, then the differences in political opinions concerning how to best wield the violence necessary to compel political ideologies which MUST use it, under the false moral auspices of “Law” in order to sell it as something other than rank violence in service to entirely subjective standards, become purely semantic.  Philosophically, there is no actual difference.  Which means that ALL ideas which incorporate Government necessarily lead to the same place: tyranny.

Anyway, back to mandatory voting:

*

A forced choice is not a choice; and FORCED compliance to the outcome of a choice is overt evidence of the illegitimacy of such a “choice”.  (Of course, when I say “forced compliance to the outcome”, I mean as opposed to the necessary natural experience of an effect.  Like, if you choose vanilla ice cream for dessert you are going to taste vanilla ice cream.  This isn’t force, this is consequence…a free and willful consequence of a free choice.)

This false choice (forced choice) is, in fact, and ironically, an outright denial and rejection of man’s ability to choose, which is a rejection of his very agency.  And thus it is a rejection of his ability, qua himself, to be aware of anything–to know anything–at all. And thus, it denies that he is capable of making a choice in the first place. Here’s why:

The scenario is this: I must choose A or B (or A or B or C or D…the number of “options” is irrelevant).  But the coercive nature of the choice functionally eradicates the difference.  Because of FORCE, A = B.  Or, said another way, A = B via FORCE.  If I am forced into A or B, then choice is not the thing defining the relationship. Real choice, predicated upon my will, which proceeds from the understanding that I (Self), being the conscious agent, form the ethical and epistemological (good and true) reference for the purpose and relevancy of the choice, is not what defines the distinction–the relationship–between A and B and myself.  Rather, FORCE from an outside agent or institution of Authority (legal violence…which is not synonymous with moral violence) is that which defines the relationship.  My choice thus is irrelevant.  For by the nature of coercion I am forced upon A or B, and A or B is forced upon me.  In other words, I am forced to accept A, OR I am forced to accept B.  And this means that both A and B equally represent my submission to the Authority…which is merely submission to violence.  (Who has supreme authority? The guy with the biggest gun.) Thus, they both equally cease to be an option, and therefore I do not choose between them in any legitimate sense of the word. They have both become merely symbols of my submission…my sacrifice.  They are equal manifestations, distinction-less, of my utter enslavement to coercive authority.  Whatever other distinctions there may be between A and B are irrelevant.  They both equally represent Authority.  And Authority is FORCE, and FORCE nullifies volition, and this nullifies choice.

A and B cease to become actual options because they cease to become functionally distinct.  They represent a monolith of sorts; a singular thing to which I am bound by FORCE, not by choice.  A = B precisely because I cannot actually choose them, because I do not define the relationship.  That I must accept A means, as far as I as an individual am concerned, the exact same thing as I must accept B, and vice versa.  The fact that I may not act freely of my own will on my own behalf but am forced by threats of violence into the “choice” makes “choice”, itself, at the very conceptual level, compulsory.  And “compulsory choice” is a contradiction in terms which necessarily denies my agency. That I must be forced to consider A or B demands the assumption that I do not, in and of myself, possess the ability to properly apprehend their value, and thus their meaning, in the first place.  And this means that I cannot possibly know the difference.

*

Legitimate and foundational choice is the necessary and rational right of the individual to decide (choose) how he wants to relate to ONE specific thing at any given single moment.  This means that choice is never really, at root, between A or B, but between A and NOT A, or B and NOT B; and by this I mean that A is not the same thing (does not equal) as NOT B, and B is not the same thing as NOT A.  The rejection of A does not necessarily mean the acceptance of B…for B is not A’s “negative corollary”, or vice versa.  The non-acceptance/application of A is not B; and the non-acceptance/application of B is not A, because A and B are entirely distinct things.  The absence of one does not equal the presence of the other.  Simply because A might or may be selected for a particular purpose does not make B the reciprocal of A.  That is, the absence of A does not fundamentally, logically, or ontologically equal the presence of B.  And this is the root of real choice, because real choice does not synthesize the two.  It means the actual, efficacious, distinction between A and B, as opposed to a purely illusory or semantic one.  If I am presented with a choice between coffee and tea, and I decline the tea, it doesn’t mean that I must have the coffee. I might have the coffee, but the declining of the tea is not, itself, the acceptance of coffee.  Because the real decision I am making is not whether I will have coffee or tea, but whether I will have coffee or not have coffee; and whether I will have tea or not have tea.  Tea is absolutely distinct from coffee, and coffee is absolutely distinct from tea, and both are absolutely distinct from me. Their identities are not bound to each other, nor to me.  And I, as the moral and intellectual agent, whose Self represents the reference for the meaning and purpose of them, MUST make the CHOICE (and dictate the terms by which the choice is made based on what I WANT and what I THINK) to apply each one, as distinct from the other, to me, separately.  And I am not obligated to either, separately.  But as soon as we wreck the distinction…as soon as we make the reciprocal of A, B, or vice versa, by FORCING “choice”, then we nullify choice.  And thus, as soon as we use FORCE to remove the rational distinction between objects, or leaders, we remove the rational distinction between those objects or leaders and the individual.  We are merely using FORCE to utterly integrate the individual into the will of the Authority, periodThere is no choice for an individual who’s choices are demanded, and determined for him by the Authority. There is only the sacrifice of man to this new “reality”, where A IS B and B IS A, because the “choice” of one over the other represents no rational difference to the individual, but merely his absolute obligation, manifest by violence, to the will of the Authority.