[Ask the Gulch] Why would human beings opt to be Governed by Force? Sanity seems in short supply. "Change" is coming!
Posted by DeanStriker 8 years, 3 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
That was shortly after I read Atlas Shrugged, twice in a row. That became my "bible".
I'm not "religious" in any typical sense, but maybe we all need some sort of bible to cling to!
I was on my way to talk at a discussion group primarily composed of libs. It was the quietest group ever. Usually I would get at least 5 or 6 questions. Didn't get one. Got home early.
My take is it would require a massive tune up on the mind set and would still involve separating wheat from chaff.
Chief among the changes is some way to control definitions without being too controlling so I thought of a self controlling system.
If I may I'll use language as a way of expressing that.
a. English is the major language
b. Spanish is secondary
put another way the Eastern Hemisphere has well over a hundred in Europe the same in Asia and 100 in China alone. Africa not quite as bad.
Western Hemisphere three that are important.
1. Spanish
2. English
3 Brazileno Portuguese
Two target audiences. Those who are here and speak only rudimentary English Those who are arriving.
Side trip. people pick up bottles and cans if there is a refund of deposit. In Singapore they do it or face a fine then a lashing.
Carrot and stick
For people in the country mandatory one foreign language in public schools. An immigrant arrives speaking English and Spanish or any other good to go.
For Any government service English and one other required or ecven English, Spanish and one other. Military included.
Military runs there own schools and will whip out that requirement within the year be done in three.
Two languages requried for education assistance.
The osmosis effect takes the path of least resistance. Spanish is by far the easiest. No lack of instructors.
Schools required to teach English prior to attendance in other classes.
How long does it take? If done right one week to two weeks using the Total Immersion system. Use of public school or other buildings partial immersion four weeks level one fluency.
Side benefit Spanish then becomes the defacto second language to English the de facto first language. English I recall is not de jure.
The melting pot is fired up language is no longer a barrier.
Same principles change other sorts of cultural mind sets.
Learn two or even three you own the western hemisphere.
can't fulfill the American dream when you are slave to those who know the language.
Nothing new to this Berlitz invented the system and routinely does 2000 words all tenses, speak , read, write, comprehend in six days of 12 hours.
The proper purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals from coercion by others, in accordance with objective law under limited powers of government to prevent the government from becoming the criminal. That is based on an ethics of rational self interest in which it is recognized that man has the capacity to and must think for himself to make choices in his own life for his own life. See Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government" and "The Objectivist Ethics".
An ethics of duty and self sacrifice implies self sacrifice enforced by government. An epistemology of faith leads to force, with no other means to resolve disputes. See Ayn Rand's "Faith and Force".
Those who lack rationality lack self confidence in their own ability to think and deal with reality. Their lack of self esteem makes them willing to submit to others to make 'expert' judgments and to impose the self destructive ethics they lack the integrity to live by themselves. They expect others to sacrifice to them under the same ethics, and having lost all distinction between rational persuasion and force, and with no confidence in their own rationality, they resort to pressure group warfare and collectivism.
The answer is a philosophy of reason and individualism, which began in the Enlightenment but which was undermined by traditionalism. It's not a matter of thinking that people by nature inherently want "other people's stuff". See Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual.
BTW: Why do meteorologists love economists? Because economists' predictions are so bad that they make meteorologists' forecasts look good. Incidentally, I'm an econometrician myself -- the marriage between economics (the dismal science) and statistics (the scary mathematics).
In the cases of creeping collectivism, the transition to totalitarianism is often so gradual that the original authors are not associated with the eventual tyrants. When the transition is rapid, they can be, as in the Marx-Lenin-Stalin linkage.
In my case, I had a great fear of getting involved in group activity even eating at the table when I was very young. I tried to avoid structured group activity in physical education and group activity in school. I had no problem with learning things. In collage I only had trouble in physical ed and ROTC which were structured group activities. I like individual on individual discussions but when group membership is required, I go elsewhere. I went Galt around 1972 when I received notice that I would have to register with the NSF and ACS due to being a chemist since I only would want my employer and myself judging my work. I was also doing number theory and it became evident that the NSA was cracking down on publications by some number theorists. So I went into a one person business to earn my way. I tried opting our of Medicare by just doing odd jobs and just paying income tax but after a few years I got a letter from IRS threatening jail if I did not pay up the back self employment taxes. So I collect the $653.00 a month of social security and watch the interest from my small IRA, with which I paid my real estate taxes reduce by 80% due to the Fed interfering with interest rates and money supply.
For those of you searching for a safe cushy society you will just get pain and suffering in the future by asking government to provide it for you.
"Opting" was Never the case. It all begins with our forebears, who made all our choices for us. Opting was never part of any scheme.
Posters spend all day, every day, seeking to "fix" things, all to no avail.
The significant symptom is the belief that, as long as you take (with loving intention,) there will always be someone willing to give, (with the same loving intention)...forever and ever...and, only then, will there be peace in the world.
Unfortunately for people suffering from the delusions of the Woodstock Disease, they don't realize that although all men may be born as equals...what they choose to do, as they grow as individuals results in a wonderful inequality of intellectual capacity, personality, ambition, drive, ability to love, care, understand, produce...and so forth.
So the fatal flaw is that the only way to obtain the crazy version of equality that is envisioned for the masses by the affected individual (which the delusional individual truly does not believe will affect him, adversely, in any way) is by force.
...and so, like the proverbial boiling frog, the individual, believing in their altruistic fantasy, is surprised to suddenly wake up as they are being marched toward the ovens.
In a Gadda Da Vida is how you say in a garden of Eden with your mind scrambled by drugs. I once asked an acquaintance who was at Woodstock what he remembered the most about it. He knocked me back on my heels with his answer. It was, "The smell."
Seeing the condition of some of my friends, as they returned from Woodstock, made me very happy that I didn't go.
They were foolish then - though their idealistic exuberance, at that time, could be explained away by the inexperience and know-it-allness of youth. Now there is no excuse for those people not to be able to extrapolate and arrive at the true cost of "free."
sincerely
A. Frederick Neumann
In short, divide us in "us versus them", promise utopia and twist the message at will, disregarding truths. Add to the mix the substitution of indoctrination for education. Sound familiar?
Ideally, a perfect citizen would vigorously comply with a reasonable set of rules intended to minimize friction with other citizens, and if society was composed of nothing but perfect citizens, no force would be needed. Unfortunately, humans are imperfect, and some disregard the well being of others, or the need for order. Those imperfect citizens are the ones most likely to need the use of force to impose compliance.
Where the element of force goes awry is when the rules of order become too complex and numerous for even the model citizen to comply with, and the state mechanism begins to treat all citizens as suitable to feel the force of the state's power. We reached that point quite a while ago.
I must ask that you read the article I had hoped to bring here, but couldn't because I opted not to become a "Producer".
http://noruler.net/13171/going-volunt...
Thank you.
I read the article at the link you provided. I found it difficult, sometimes confusing or ambiguous. My overall impression was: an attempt to describe a Utopia with insufficient structure, consistency or basic completeness. Too bad. The subject of the role of government is vitally important and ignored by vast majorities of Americans. You might benefit from studying Ayn Rand's writings. She is excellent at exposing ideas in a consistent and carefully thought out way. "Producer" or not, welcome to the discussions.
You might consider elaborating your thoughts on my website, as to "confusing or ambiguous". and perhaps reading more there to clarify.
At this point, I truly believe that altruism and blind faith are so huge in bringing us to collapse which will result in abandoning government as a not-viable and immoral pathway for mankind.
http://noruler.net/13171/going-volunt...
But becoming a "Producer" his doesn't fit either my situation or my motivation.
So what's happened here has apparently sent exactly nobody to trouble to read my source post, and I see my little effort coming to naught. I had hoped to trigger discussion on that link, but again it's drifting all over the map. So it's not working. Guess I need to steal away into the night.
Mental discipline, of any sort, can help us understand this process better, but anyone who thinks his reason is in complete control of it is fooling himself.
Individuals who embrace and practice reason do not act out "gut feelings" rationalized later. Much of our thinking is learned and internalized at the subconscious level (including such activities as reading and writing), subject to constant conscious checking and analysis. Selective focus and rationality become easier and natural over time with practice and constant effort, guided by a self-chosen drive for objectivity.
Error, evasion, psychological distortion, fantasy and rationalization are all possible, which is why we require epistemology and ethics for principles of goals and method. That is why rationality is the primary virtue of Ayn Rand's ethics, to be pursued by choice rather than regarded as automatic.
Those who don't do it remain savages or wind up, entirely or in some mixture of degree, as religious zombies, resentfully cynical hedonistic hippies, or mobs of street rabble led by and supporting the likes of Obama demagoguery as they chant his name and demand that irrational lives matter while they burn the city and persecute the police from high office.
Neither the heroes of Atlas Shrugged nor any other even remotely sympathetic character acts like or insults each other as monkeys fighting over a banana, driven by their "guts" rationalized later as the meaning of rationality. "Nobody is as naive as a cynic."
I will try to state a few things which, I believe, are self-evident truths. If we agree on those, perhaps we can earn a chance for a worthwhile discussion.
1. Humans are a species of living organisms on Earth, the only one in possession of consciousness, rational apparatus, cognitive abilities and free will capable of controlling his actions and subconscious and emotional drives.
2. No other living organism has these attributes developed to even a remotely comparable degree.
3. Already Aristoteles recognized clearly the distinction between needs and desires of living things and especially humans.
4. If a man doesnot rationally evaluate his emotional drives and adjusts his actions in accordance with those evaluations, then he is not performing to his potential and deserves the consequences.
5. I understand "rationalization" to mean an evaluation after the action is taken with the purpose of explaining to self or others a rational basis for that action. Is that how you understand it?
I did not understand your last paragraph. What sorts of mental disciplines you recognize? Is "this process" you are referring to the one whereby most of our actions originate in "gut feelings"?
Let's analyze, evaluate and conclude, thus living up to our potential as rational human beings. Are you game?
EDIT: Separated the paragraph.
Thank you. What you say to me means that all rationalizations in this context are unethical. Is that true?
This happens because it is the way we evolved to operate. It's quite possible to do the reasoning first, when you have time, but you don't always have it; and even when you do, gut feelings which are not rational will resist being overridden, and you'll find reasons to go along with them.
To me this is all a strong argument in favor of evolution and against creation (or intelligent design). God the Designer would probably have put our reason in complete charge, and it is not.
Martimus -- I am not asserting that rationalizations are or are not ethical, nor that reason is less than desirable. I am merely asserting that it is easy for us to misattribute to reason decisions that we made from the gut, and that this can lead us to draw conclusions that make no sense. It would be ideal if our reason could be in control of our decisions all the time, but that isn't possible because of the way we're built.
First, I agree with you and am entirely convinced that life spontaneously started on Earth (and elsewhere?) and evolved all the way up to the humans.
I believe that every time I am tempted to come up with an excuse for an action, I am aware of that temptation and always consciously know if my action is based on reason or on a subconscious impulse, or on untruth. In shortage of time, we know that we are pressed to take action without an objective evaluation. We make a gamble (pro versus amateur?) and certainly know that we are doing it. When we knowingly pretend that there is a rational explanation justifying an action that should not have been taken, in my opinion, we are being unethical.
My main objection goes to the excuse: "Devil made me do it!" In my mind that comes from twin roots of fear and irrational faith.
Fear makes people stop thinking. I think that most instinctive fear-inspired actions are to protect self and closest of kin. I think that those come directly from the most fundamental attributes of life: procreation, replication and self-preservation. But these impulses do not cause initiation of force. They are defensive.
The irrational faith, I think, comes from a rational desire to quickly explain the unknown. In some way the irrational faith is an ultimate rationalization: "to convince oneself or others that something is true or justified when it has no such basis" (see ewv above).
I am having real trouble with substituting "Devil made me do it!" excuse with the one that sounds more or less: " That is the way I am built!"
Finally, I think that our reason must control our actions. I have met many people who "decide" and then still do nothing.
Yes, I do assert that rationalizations, the way ewv and you define them are unethical efforts.
EDIT: separated paragraphs.
However, rationalization itself is the most common thing we do "on automatic." Anytime you stop paying attention, it happens. And nobody can pay attention all the time.
The lesson, for me at least, is don't assume something I believe is grounded in reason just because I already believe it. A lot of times, I already believe things because of laziness. So everything should be open to reexamination.
Faith (whether religious or not) gets one into the bad habit of assuming some beliefs should never be reexamined. But it's not the only way to get there.
The government was permitted to use force only when absolutely necessary; to protect our Being, our pursuit of happiness, our property and our contracts.
http://noruler.net/13171/going-volunt...
If you really do want to understand what many here would consider the enemy, you could do far worse than to read what Haidt has to say on the matter.
And, it isn't just about "understanding" the enemy. It is about understanding what can help swing them from the dark side to the right side.
Force, as I see it, is when the government, an elite few or a mob, decide they know better for you and yours than you do and enact unlawful rules to govern conduct to ensure their supremacy.
My contention, all laws/rules, all governments, are not an act of force. The individual can still maintain his/her Rights in a legitimate society AND STILL compromise some of his/her independence to participate in the group (country).
The benefits of society are primarily accumulation of knowledge and trade, not "stability and security" of a tribe. Voluntarily dealing with other people is not for the "group's well being", and it is not a "compromise of independence". Neither is the 'security' of a proper government protecting the rights of the individual, in contrast to imposing conservative faith and force for 'tradition' and feelings of "security" against people with new ideas pursuing their own lives.
We sent many to OCS at Fort Benning Georgia. That brought in good people from off the streets even out of highschools if 17.
the one thing they all had in common? Looking for some order and discipline in their lives. They candidly described their home lives as to open, too unorganized and too iffy with next to zero rules.
But we made sure they realized we were in the breaking things and killing people business regardless of politics the ultimate unorganized lack of rules clusterf...k in existence.
Years later I found out one had made General, three or four Colonel five to seven Lieutenant Colonel (one an GED laid off saw mill worker) and many to the highest ranks non commissioned one to Sergeant Major a former janitor.
The system broke down of course but then along came Kuwait and bang the reserves went to war. The old system still came back in the form of vote hunting politicians. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington good examples. Bitching about the poor familes back home....Two dumb asses who didn't bother to check to see what active duty mean in terms of family benefits.
They were Shia supporters so it figures.
The reserves paid the price for being the hidey hole for those with connections during Vietnam.
But like all of us....they went where they were told to go by their their military and political leaders who ultimately were given the power by the mothers and fathers and relations of those reserve soldiers.
Pray to your own God the seasoned veterans never decided to uphold their oath of office. When the Dogs of War return home they are most to be feared. A lesson not lost on the ex governor of Arizona. I see nothing being done to cause them not to uphold that oath.
Those who treat their soldiers despicably are soon despised by those who are their protectors. Crossing that line is easy. They never took an oath of allegiance to you.
Which all ties in together with the main point. Why people look for protection from force by being part of force.