Stop Lying to Yourself

I just finished reading (well, listening to) Stefan Molyneux's On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion last night. While the author's style seems a little tedious at times, bordering on redundant, it may simply be because I am very often exposed to his work, and thus it feels like he's beating me over the head simply because that's what it takes for most people to truly grasp the shocking evils disguised as normalcy.

The theme of the book, though, made me think about this presidential election, which was a big pain in my ass. I started out with the Ron Paul crew, and following his defeat in the primaries, quickly grew accustomed to the futility of statism by listening to Molyneux's podcasts. Consequently, when the time came to vote on the President, I was a card-carrying Voluntaryist, and glad to be rid of the soul-crushing lesser-of-evils game.

The frustrating part was all the direct criticism I got from the people around me for not voting - some of my friends actually got angry at me. I never had a very compelling way to quickly argue my case. It's not easy for people like me to "make sense" to everyone in mainstream society, because even if they agree with me, I inevitably get stuck at how to implement my ideology, and they go back to voting for one of the members of the diverse selection of tyrants every election season.

It would be much easier if, as a reaction to injustices all over the world and particularly in the U.S., I became a socialist. Politicians LOVE socialists, whether they say so or not, and most socialists don't look outside the political realm to seek their end. By appealing to the sentiments of socialists, politicians gain control of sectors of various influence and wealth. Furthermore, like most individuals, socialists fail to see the gun in the room (the government), and go straight after the corporations, which are hardly innocent, but couldn't exercise the exploitation they now enjoy without the government as a lead blocker and a safety net.

Here's the thing. It's absolutely insane to think your vote matters, but to get mad at me for not using my vote is a new level of insanity. Let's be clear, though, even though this is a plain fact, I still get it. When I was a Ron Paul supporter I was extraordinarily pissed that more people didn't vote for him. Since then, though, I've been breaking down the absurd illusions that I've entertained for 20-some odd years.

Now, watching people carefully consider who to use their precious vote on is hilarious to me.

If you are like my friends and I, and are not part of any major union, your vote does not matter, and it certainly isn't a virtue or a responsibility, and here are some reasons why:

1. Statistically, clearly, it doesn't matter. Let's be serious, I don't think Swing Vote is ever going to become a reality.
2. Votes get lost, misread, miscounted, who knows, maybe even hacked nowadays.
   
3. Your voting operates under the assumption that the candidate is going to actually do what they say they are going to do (epic fail)
4. There are so many more bought-and-paid-for (so to speak) voters than any well-intentioned "vigilant" citizenry could hope to offset.
   
5. The whole affair hinges on the idea that (basically) whoever wins more votes than the other, is that the "people have spoken" and that's who they want in power. Clearly, everyone else is getting screwed over, because they're now going to be forced to comply with the decisions of the candidate elected.
   
6. The system implies that having a president is a good/necessary thing. This is especially pertinent in that the role of a president is now VERY different than it used to be
   
7. The president can't simply undo all of the evils of a previous administration. Tyrant though he may be, he still doesn't have quite that much power...yet. If he did, he would be a dictator, and we'd be totally fucked. I'm actually not positive that we're not really damn close to this kind of situation.
   

You'd be better off using your time to write your congressperson. What a joke that is.

Anyways, I don't talk about this kind of stuff because I was just that upset by my critics. I bring it up and make a big deal out of it because it's this kind of delusion that perpetuates the sick fantasy of government. It's astounding, and it's all around us. Every new election cycle there's so much hope and resolution, and then we come to find it's the same old shit, but usually worse. Every government program enacted "with good intentions" creates a massive bureaucracy and unnecessary drag on taxpayers. Then when it fails, the answer is always the same: "There's not enough funding" or "not enough oversight," when the program was already funded in an unbelievably inefficient and exorbitant way, and layered in mind-numbing bureaucracy.

It's a joke. It's a fucking joke. But it's the least funny joke in the history of the world.

So go ahead and vote, but do yourself a favor and stop thinking that it's going to make a positive difference, and for god's sake don't come after me thinking I'm going the wrong direction just because the rest of you have been marching off a cliff for centuries.

Why I'm a Voluntaryist, Part I

I've been looking forward to this post for a while. I've named it "Part I," but I don't in reality know if there will be other parts. I would rather do it this way though, instead of covertly editing my post later on.

I am going to number each of my points to make them slightly more digestable, but first, an explanation of Voluntaryism:

First of all, anything that I will be writing is explained better tenfold by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.com. Second, if you'd like to get a head start, here is the Wikipedia entry for Voluntaryism.

Voluntaryism is an ideological viewpoint that essentially rejects all coercive force. Anything that is not achieved by voluntary means is most definitely NOT justified by the end. Contrary to mainstream ideologies, Voluntaryism is deeply rooted in human nature, morality, and objectivity. It is synonymous with little-l libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, though both terms have been corrupted by misuse. Voluntaryism necessarily denies the justifications for the state, otherwise known as the government.

That should be good for now - onward!


1. A Voluntaryist system is tolerant of all ideologies, so long as they don't involve coercion.

I feel that one of the simplest ways to explain my position is by saying this: I know what's good for me, I don't know what's good for you. Thus it's important to have the freedom and capacity to pursue curiosity, and a society that rewards responsibility, ambition and cooperation.

If you are a socialist or a communist, you should rejoice if you find yourself in such a society. Feel free to set up your voluntary community of individuals and get your whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing going on. But don't think about trying to use force to achieve your goals - because not only is it a crime, but it disproves the validity of your ideology for the millionth time and your own morality as a proponent. Fortunately, the rest of the voluntaryist society will be waiting, with ample opportunity for you to make a good living.

2. There's nothing that governments can do that private industry can't do better, except for the things that shouldn't be done in the first place.

This is not only one of the most important arguments for voluntaryism, but it is also one of the most loaded. It is especially significant because without the state, there is no central banking (and inevitably fiat currency), and without central banking, expensive, devastating, exploitative, opportunistic military campaigns are impossible. Of course, even if such excursions could be funded without government and central banking, private defense companies and the like wouldn't engage in them because of a necessary transparency that they possess and the government (especially the CIA) does not. Even if that weren't the case, it is still much more costly to attempt to steal resources from the developing world than it is to employ people and trade instead, if you can't print your own money.

3. People are required to act responsibly, governments aren't.

If the FDA aaaaaccidentally allows some pain medicine contaminated with HIV circulate among the general populace, what happens? A slap on the wrist, some evasive posturing from official spokespersons, a rotation of leadership? Say Hope Steffie calls the police for help one night and is forcibly strip-searched by six or more cops, all the while pleading for them to stop? Nearly two-hundred people have died from taser use across the United States, and yet cops still go straight for the taser if they have trouble removing a student who asked 'the wrong question' from an auditorium. Thousands of atrocities are committed in senseless wars by people following orders or simply by acting on the dehumanized new shell that military training has equipped them with. Government doesn't have accountability. It's not set up to. Every time something goes wrong, if anything is done, some figurehead is swapped out for a different sociopath, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.

4. Monopolies of force are inherently abusive.

Some argue that power corrupts, I argue that the power structure is already corrupt, and the evils that emerge are simply implicit in its nature. There is no reasonable justification of a monopoly of power like the state and it's forces. If people are mostly bad, a state cannot exist, because it would be populated with all of said bad people who will use this unrivaled power to their own selfish ends. Of course, if people are mostly good, a state simply does not need to exist. Competition is a very powerful tool of balance in performance and accountability, and voluntary association ensures the best quality product at the best possible price.


5. The ideology is founded on morality and empirical evidence of human nature.

For this one, Stefan Molyneux does the best work by far of explaining. The morality part is pretty obvious. Violence and theft are immoral. These are counter-productive to society and damaging to individuals, so obviously it is incorrect, and immoral to create a giant governing body that's existence is the utter reverse of these accepted moral truths. The human nature part is evident to me, but a little more tricky, perhaps.

Mainstream ideologies do not even address morality, they just skim the surface of trite bills and "hot button" topics like abortion. So, in order to illustrate my point, I'll compare two radical ideologies.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the estranged marxist cousin of anarcho-capitalism or Voluntaryism. Both are "radical" "utopian" ideologies. Neither recognize the supposed superiority, and thus justification, of the state, but the two ideology necessitate very different views of human nature. Both seek to deconstruct the state as a first phase. However, anarcho-capitalism takes what is already evidenced by human nature (self-interest), general good nature, and structures society in a way that these can be manifested positively. Anarcho-syndicalism necessitates an additional phase in not only seeking to alter the structure of society, but also seeking to alter human nature. The way I think about it is that anarcho-capitalism takes reality and thinks of the best way to modify it, while anarcho-capitalism takes a fantasy and thinks of a way to make it reality.

Self-interest often gets a bad rap because of the power-disparities we have created for ourselves through government. In and of itself it is a neutral human-quality, or rather it can be either good or bad. The key is not legitimizing a system where self-interest can be unapologetically abused. When you give someone power, they use it to their advantage. Duh. If anyone thinks that business can be truly exploitative without a little mutual backscratching with the government, you have some reading to do. If you think business is exploitative simply because of the presence of a hierarchy, you have been misled by Marxist rhetoric.

6. It's practical

The practical arguments for voluntaryism have been around for a long time. I'm not going to address them all here because they have been explained many times by far more eloquent authors, even entering mainstream discourse from time to time, but are never heeded. Historically, the closer a society comes to the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, the realm of corporatism, statism, socialism, the more blatant and abhorrent the abuse of power. One needs only look at the most horrific events and despotic regimes of the past century. Not only are socialist and government approaches immoral, but they are terribly impractical. They don't work. In fact, they systematically make the situation worse. For example, right now we are trying to combat problems created by irresponsible lending and spending with irresponsible lending and spending. In trying to alleviate poverty the good ol' government way (throwing money at something), we've not only created disincentives to work, but we've increased debt for future generations by stealing from current ones. In the developing world, this kind of aid can actually create a kind of stagnation in which any local farmers cannot ever hope to compete with intermittently appearing free food.

7. The nit-picky details that people always get hung up on are virtually irrelevant

Since becoming a voluntaryist, I'm continually baffled by the unending and often creative questions that are posed to me as an indication that my ideology might not work. This is, of course, a very healthy practice, and I wish it were afforded for many psuedo-intellectual exercises that it is not. The part that baffles me is that such a violent, half-baked, self-contradictory ideology like Marxism is so socially acceptable and afforded so much benefit-of-the-doubt. Of course, I get it, having embraced moronic ideologies of my own in the past, notably neo-conservatism.

The thing is, though, at the end of the day, what is there to lose? Why be apprehensive to accept the ideology? Combine all of the random events that could happen - the tiny percentage of psychopaths, spontaneous deaths, complications involving road construction with private property, anything you can think of. Now put that on a scale beside the unbelievably violent atrocities you can barely stand to think of resulting from wars, oft-overlooked economic policies resulting in destruction of wealth and savings, sanctions preventing alleviation of sickness and hunger, institutionalized hate and persecution, endless police brutality, political and judicial corruption, incredibly counter-productive prisons and prisoners of victimless crimes such as walking across an imaginary line (Mexican immigrants). Don't forget the environment as well - I mean, they test A-bombs in the oceans for Christ's sake. The latter is going to be pinned to the ground on the scale 'o death 'n destruction. By a long shot. The voluntaryist society may be a little more spontaneous, but a system that rewards innovative thought, dynamic evolution and cooperation creates a better life for everyone. Societies that don't institutionalize violence and teach that it's right when you're wearing a blue costume or work in a white building will tend not to propagate more violence.

For the self-professed socialists, If you're so adamant about socialism, how can you afford a computer? I'm living the legal extent of my ideology, and I'm helping people too. Given the countless failures (and I am very generous to use that term) of socialist theory, how can you in good conscience even argue for it? The reign of Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao...all those assholes! How many more people have to die before you give it up, seriously?! And you still have the nerve to say that I'm not compassionate. Puke.

If you really hate corporations, the only way to get them on a leash is to cut off their government buddy-system. If you really want a fair life for all human beings, stop letting the government toy with their futures. Advocate programs that emphasize success, not lowest-common denominators. Be charitable, don't force others to be. because at the end of the day, any given person in the government doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing. And they sure as hell don't care about you.

Judgment

I had a thought today, in fact just a moment ago, which I am uncharacteristically going to try to flesh out in text rather than simply transfer a fully-formed thought from my brain.

As voluntaryism defines both my political and moral ideology, I am about as socially liberal as it is possible to be. In fact, my personal sentiments take this a step farther in that I believe our judgments built upon our own man-made constructs and categorizations distract us not only from the equal humanity in all of us, but also from the beautiful individuality within each person. I'm appalled by both the superficial notion of compulsory "diversity" and the more traditional institutions of racism, segregation, and assimilation. The mindsets that promote either are on opposite sides of the field, but are in reality playing for the same team. Both serve to divide us as human beings.

Without getting into a whole bunch of scientific talk that I don't know about, I think we'll all agree that there are at least two phases of judgment. The first is the subconscious or semi-conscious judgment, based on your experiences, upbringing, opinions of others (regarding someone or something), initial sensory stimuli, and probably a myriad of other things. The second is your conscious judgment, based upon empirical evidence - personal interaction. In many ways the two overlap, but I like to think that we allow ourselves to let one drive.

For example, several years ago I deliberately conditioned myself to judge people based on my personal interaction with them (or at least observation of them). However, there is an undeniable part of everyone's psyche that summarizes their accumulated knowledge of people that have certain characteristics. The memory operates via association, so you would expect this to be no exception. In my experience, it is the amount that we consciously suppress this impulse as it influences our judgment that makes the difference. Simply put, regardless of preconcieved notions, a stranger should begin with ten points, with only the ability to lose them in the interaction, rather than beginning with no points, and having the ability to gain some.

The critical point is that the groups that we have segmented people into - which to some degree is natural - do not "do" anything that is not central to the definition that we have for them. So, it would be accurate to say that all christians worship Jesus Christ and muslims Allah, or that all "black people" have darker skin than "white people" (I'm not sure this would necessarily be true for "african-americans," in the objective sense of the term). You could say that all gay men and lesbian women are attracted to members of their own respective sexes.

Now, let's test out some of the more insidious stereotypes. Not all muslims advocate violence toward westerners. Some do. Not all catholic priests molest children. Some do. It would certainly be unfair to the peaceful, decent members of these groups to be attacked (verbally, or sometimes physically) for the evil deeds of other members among these groups. With so much faith in democracy, surely some would think that if it were somehow proven that the majority of members of such a group routinely engaged in some unsavory activity that has nothing to do with the group they belong to, that surely all could be condemned. This would again be wrong. Some people seem to think that committing crimes can be inherent in an otherwise peaceful "group," and they ignore the human nature and difference of perspective at the root, demonizing the group as subhuman monsters.

This calls for three large clarifications -

First, if the "group" is by definition objectively immoral, the aforementioned does not necessarily apply. For example, the KKK is by definition an immoral organization. This is not up for debate. They admittedly advocate discrimination against other members of society.

Second, my religious examples actually complicate this whole issue, because there are certain implications in many religious texts that are up for interpretation, which is one reason I don't engage in (organized) religious belief.

Third, and most importantly, it is how we respond to the judgments we make that lends any real importance to what I'm trying (read: struggling) to explain. It would seem to me an entirely acceptable response to abstain from attending catholic masses given evidence that any number of children have been molested by priests. So would avoiding a reportedly dangerous area (more on this later).

There are many examples of the reverse throughout history - internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, vandalization and acts of violence against mosques and American muslims after 9/11. If your judgment leads you to aggressive force against someone you don't know...you're probably doing something wrong.

One of the reasons why government is so sinister is that it attempts, at least visibly, to spread around accountability in a way that deteriorates this dynamic. Thus, when individuals in the military perpetuate a horrific crime against humanity, not only were they enabled to do so by being systematically dehumanized in training, but they are just "following orders," although in some cases acts of extreme violence can emerge from the "mob mentality," catalyzed by the ever-present idea that it's "us vs. them" (see my blog: The Perils of Collectivism). On up the ladder, the general was just acting on "solid intelligence," and so on. Not to mention that war in and of itself is baffling to even the most casual scrutinizer, and for good reason, but that's a separate article (hint: self-interest meets enormously disproportionate power structure).

Believe it or not, I didn't get to the point of my initial thought, but it's lucidity has faded. Hopefully this article is not too tangential - I know it's kind of sloppy. Forgive me.

The Perils of Collectivism

“USA! USA! USA! USA!” The crowd being addressed by John McCain at tonight’s convention deliberately drowns out interruptions from a group of protesters known as Code Pink. A photo montage and voice over explains to viewers at home what “country first” means.

These expressions of nationalistic pride may seem harmless, and are, in and of themselves, in fact quite benign. However, it is within the mindset that drives these somewhat meaningless chants and platitudes – and many like them throughout history – that dwells a dangerous tendency. It is the idea that the needs and desires of the group supercede that of the individual – a justification for the abuse, manipulation, and disregard of human life.

The following stories serve to illustrate my point, as sort of microcosms for the violence that can emerge from collectivism, or group-think. They are, by nature, to a lesser degree, and without clearly stated goals, but it is the human capacity and the behaviorial paradigm that I am attempting to highlight.

Critical Mass, an effort to call attention to the bicyclists’ road rights, took place in July of this year in Seattle. The event consists of a massive group of bicyclists riding on main streets, and generally having a good time. Unfortunately, after the event this year, many local cycling advocates are concerned that the event does more harm than good for relations between cyclists and motorists – primarily because of violence that occurred between one driver and a group of Critical Mass riders.

The aggressor is not clear – a cyclist who was hit by the car claims that the driver, angry and impatient that the traffic was blocked, pulled into the group of riders. The driver, on the other hand, claims that when he attempted to safely pull into traffic, the cyclists swarmed the car and began to rock it, saying that they meant to tip it. The driver stated that he revved the engine without realizing it was in gear.

Regardless of the source of fault, what occurred next is relatively clear. According to The Seattle Times,

"[The driver] was mobbed by the cyclists, who shattered his windshield and rear window, dented the sides of his car, slashed his tires and tore off his driver's side mirror. As he stepped out of the Subaru, someone smashed something hard across the back of his head. He later learned it was likely a bike lock. Doctors stapled the wound closed.”

“[The driver] said he thinks at least some of the Critical Mass riders were looking for a fight: ‘They were obviously equipped and intending to get in confrontations with motorists.’”

Occurrences like these are not terribly frequent, but certainly not unheard of. We are all familiar with the term “mob mentality.” The individual, when engaged in a group, feels empowered and compelled to do things that he/she would not do on his/her own. This is not only true exclusively with regard to violence, but it is violence that requires the most profound suspension of ethical qualms. Thus, the degree to which an individual can be transformed in this context is exemplified most abjectly in violent or destructive deeds.

We are also familiar with the concept of the provocation of violence. We have been raised to look for one source of culpability. One must only look as far as a kindergarten classroom to hear the words “he/she started it!” Most human beings are reasonable enough to at least superficially seek justification for acts of violence – the juiced-up and obnoxious guy at the bar with the flirtatious girlfriend, the rioters in the wake of a tragedy, and, as seen at St. Paul’s recent GOP convention, opportunistic protesters.

“ST. PAUL, Minn. - Protesters attacked delegates, smashed windows, punctured car tires and threw bottles Monday, a violent counterpoint to an otherwise peaceful anti-war march at the Republican National Convention. Police wielding pepper spray arrested at least 56 people…

…Members of the Connecticut delegation said they were attacked by protesters when they got off their bus near the Xcel Center, KMSP-TV reported. Delegate Rob Simmons told the station that a group of protesters came toward his delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes.”

Amy Forliti, Sept. 1

Associated Press

I am not one to defend (riot) police, as they are often at least as if not more guilty of the same type of crime. Perhaps not with regard to property destruction, but certainly in seizing on an opportunity to use violence and force in what might have been peaceful assembly, sometimes not even bothering in provocation. However, it would to me seem foolish to assume that these ‘protesters’ did not arrive with the intention to behave this way.

For some reason, however, it tends to go unnoticed that this phenomenon can be accurately extrapolated to include much larger populations, and much loftier goals. In the case of nationalism, it often manifests itself in asserting the “higher ground,” that there is a greater cause, that the ends justify the means. Though the variables may differ, the behavior is the same, as is too often the outcome for those who intervene or are targeted, in much more atrocious terms, of course.

Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with associating with like-minded individuals, or grouping together to accomplish something beyond the capacity of an individual. Indeed, many things in life necessitate this. It is when the group comes together to accomplish something that violates your personal morals that you must ask yourself, “would I be doing this if I were on my own, and would I like others to do the same to me?” Perhaps more importantly, “is being a member of this group, or society, or nation, something that I should take pride in?” After all, many of the greatest crimes against humanity have been perpetrated to the sound of thunderous ovation.

"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"

We've all heard this saying before, but what does it mean? My understanding is that when a person who finds him/herself in a position of power, in this case something resembling omnipotence, the individual will always betray any principles he/she might have had in favor of sculpting a world that conforms to his/her ideal.

I was clicking around the message boards of my Facebook groups, and I came across a thread that discussed how the presidential candidates may or may not have been "corrupted by Washington." The absurdity of this discussion hit me all at once, my conclusion served to validate the ideology I espouse.

Absolute power does not corrupt, corrupt people SEEK absolute power. This is why the state always grows ever more vast, bureaucratic, and oppressive. Does no one question how it came to be that a hypothetical entity arrived upon this power? What is the nature of power? If it is the ability to manipulate the lives of other people and use force to ensure the power-wielder's will is done, isn't it kind of implicit that this person is corrupt to begin with?

The solution is not to legitimize these "positions of power." Let's be honest with ourselves, does anyone truly still believe in the idea of Plato's "philosopher-king?" Do we really expect benevolence and virtue of our political masters? And if there are people that still cling to this fantasy, does historical evidence have no bearing on their mental faculties?