One of the main factors that cause people to cling to the archaic notion of "government" ("the state") is a fear of the "rich warlord" who would supposedly take over your life without repercussions if no government were holding him back. It is claimed that government is the only thing that keeps him contained or from gaining power.
Let's examine this idea.
Would people who have tasted real freedom be so easy to take it from again? Probably not for a generation or two. However, there would undoubtedly come a time when the lure of ease and "safety" would sound nice to the less honorable among us. Then the cycle would start anew. However, I think it is better to start from scratch occasionally than to watch the state get bigger, more tyrannical, and less benevolent. Even if this is inevitable, which I am not convinced of, I think it is good to make them rebuild the state from the ground up ever so often. If you can't dig up the weed, at least chop it off at ground level from time to time.
But considering the "warlord" again: First of all, would this really be worse than the situation we are in now? We already live under a rich warlord who steals over 87% of our economic production, and demands more every year. He will kill us if we refuse to pay. He demands a ransom be paid on our homes or he will steal them from us. He demands control over whether or not we are allowed to own and carry effective weapons of self defense, and has criminalized the most effective ones; the very ones his own Constitution puts off-limits for him to touch in any way. He demands control over our travel, our business, our children, even our own bodies. He pretends to be a benevolent protector, and seems honestly bewildered at those of us who see through his velvety smooth words to the harsh truth behind them. This rich warlord is the main proponent of the boogeyman of the other, unknown, rich warlord.
Perhaps the monster we don't know is worse than the monster we know. What then? I think that the only time to keep the rich warlord from becoming a real problem is before he consolidates his power and passes "laws" that make it hard, or even impossible, to stop him. In other words, kill him upon his first act of aggression. Do you think he will behave nicely his whole life until one day he suddenly starts acting like the blossoming monster he is to become? I would imagine he will have a life-long history of aggression and coercion. Remove the "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and he will not survive to become a real threat. This means we are already at an extremely difficult phase in trying to rein in the full grown monster we currently know. Not impossible, but it will take a paradigm shift where enough people realize it is necessary. What is the tipping point?
...........................
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI've put quite a lot of thought to this over the years, and I've found myself coming to a conclusion that is at once unsatisfactory and hopeful. Let's recognize that the vast, vast, majority human existence was lived in a condition that you and I would likely describe as anarchy...or at least with no notion of a "state" as such. It's only in the last 10,000 years or so that "civilization" with what seems to be the inevitable attached State.
I think that the problem is one of space and of property. Neolithic man faced less in the way of "scarcity of resources" than we do today-and could survive without all but the rudiments of agriculture. Technology here is then in a way the slave master-since in order to maintain a modern population sophisticated agriculture, and manufacturing are requisite, leading to the inevitable cycle of the growth of the state.
But, where the anti-technology folks, like John Zerzan go wrong is thinking that it is technology and civilization that is the instigator of the cycle. It isn't. Instead it is natural(and not just human) aggression in response to scarcity, and overcrowding. The cure then is more technology and expansion beyond Earth, only then can prosperity and true freedom exist. The bad news is we won't live to see it, but the good news is that, if the lunatics of government don't exterminate humanity, its the inexorable path of technology and evolution.
But that's just me, and I drink to much. Love your thoughts.
Thanks for your comment. I see "civilization" as the cake and "the state" as the flies that are attracted to the sweet prize.
ReplyDeleteI too think technology can help free us again. I think it can accomplish that even before we begin to colonize off-planet.
I have said in other posts that I think technology has actually made the state obsolete, even if it were necessary at some point in the past (of which I am not convinced).
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI don't really think that the "state" was ever necessary either-I'd say unavoidable instead.....something analogous to gonorrhea if you engage in prostitution, not something to be lauded, but rather an occupational hazard. Don't forget that, like venereal disease, the state protects itself-for instance, private exploration of space is forbidden, as is resource exploration of most places on Earth.
The problem with the state is that, unlike it's venereal cousin, it CAN offer a benefit certain to vast swathes of the population-prosperity can imitate freedom rather like a hooker can imitate love for a time....but you're still kissing a whore.
I've followed your blog for some time and i like your approach. I may steal the cake and flies analogy at some point.
Take care.
My question would be how these people thought that governments came about in the first place? How else could a group of people attain power over such a large area UNLESS they were rich warlords. All governments have that same heritage.
ReplyDeleteGovernments are parasites, how effective they are is dependent on their ability to keep their host alive, and yet sustain themselves to the greatest degree possible, it makes sense then, that concepts such as Democratic government evolve, to create a tolerance in the organism "society" even "civilization" that they have latched onto. It actually uses a parasitic meme (statism) in a symbiotic parasitism.